Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 1-6-2012 21:13, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a usecase for them? Not sure which ports don't honor NOPORTDOCS, but that should be fixed. The case of NLS is a bit more special. Even though it is possible to build all software without gettext, there are some that don't bother and either build a static version into their library or the port forces the dependency. The use case of WITHOUT_NLS is still valid, even when installation is forced by package foo, package bar that honors the flag will have no dependency on gettext. This means that gettext can be deinstalled when foo is deinstalled. This value shouldn't be underestimated as often I'm looking at a piece of software, don't like it and go look for the next. Also, if there's automagical detection schemes in ports you know of that do not respect WITHOUT_NLS, please file PR's for them or send me the list. It is one of my pet-peeves to get rid of those. -- Mel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for zero or 1 multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0 The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Same for mail server (3 choices). While these ports do not necessarily conflict, there can be conflicting entries and as such I prefer to narrow the choice to one. Makes more sense too for the practical case. I currently have this implemented in old options, but I don't see a clear way to do this with optionsng as the minimum for multi options is 1. I can of course present these as they are now, 3-4 simple options with custom logic. -- Mel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Jun 2, 2012 1:57 PM, Mel Flynn rfl...@acsalaska.net wrote: On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for zero or 1 multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0 The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Just put a dummy option NOWEBSERVER or something in the singlegroup. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 6/1/2012 12:13 PM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a usecase for them? I don't need the !English language support offered by NLS/gettext, so prefer not to have the extra space consumed on my hard drives whenever possible. Is anything in software ever truly a 100% solution? That said, I agree that the default should be ON for the purpose of package building, and if the whole knob went away I wouldn't lose sleep. I don't use NOPORTDOCS personally, but I can see the use case for it, and don't mind putting in the effort to support it in my ports. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 2-6-2012 15:24, Chris Rees wrote: On Jun 2, 2012 1:57 PM, Mel Flynn rfl...@acsalaska.net wrote: On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for zero or 1 multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0 The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Just put a dummy option NOWEBSERVER or something in the singlegroup. I'll think I'll go for NONE to avoid NO/WITHOUT namespaces. -- Mel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Jun 2, 2012 9:29 PM, Mel Flynn rfl...@acsalaska.net wrote: On 2-6-2012 15:24, Chris Rees wrote: On Jun 2, 2012 1:57 PM, Mel Flynn rfl...@acsalaska.net wrote: On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for zero or 1 multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0 The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Just put a dummy option NOWEBSERVER or something in the singlegroup. I'll think I'll go for NONE to avoid NO/WITHOUT namespaces. NONEwhat? Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 23:48:03 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:38:26PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote: On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: would only cause confusion. I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want these features are building specialized systems and they know very well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. -- for our commercial systems, we don't install man, docs, examples. and, I would suspect that I would be a little peeved if next time I recompile all the ports, I had to stop and hit 'WITHOUT_PORTDOCS, WITHOUT_PORTEXAMPLES' on every port. Upward compatibility folks, if at all possible. You are not guaranteed that all ports implement NOPORTDOCS, so what do you do with those? If folks really are that allergic against docs, then they need to do rm -rf /usr/local/share/doc anyway. I don't quite get why people think WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS are useful or even worth the burden they put on the porters and maintainers. echo OPTIONS_UNSET+= DOCS /etc/make.conf echo NO_DIALOG=yes /etc/make.conf having NOPORTSDOC and NOPORTEXAMPLES, KNOBS and OPTIONS has been a constant demand by lots of users that is why I wrote it that way and merged NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES and WITHOUT_NLS btw to optionsng, I may be wrong, if that is the case please speak loudly, saying why, what would be best what do you expect. Keep in mind that currently lots of ports already define OPTIONS only concerning documentation, also note that some DOCS might bring some heavy depencies like doxygen. That's about the only justifiable use-case IMHO. There should be a DOC_DEPENDS that pulls in ports necessary for building documentation (if required) and perhaps (perhaps!) a knob to not pull that in and install documentation. A better solution, saving hundreds of cpu-hours world-wide, would be to persuade upstream to include fully rendered documentation (HOW HARD CAN IT BE?). The fall-back could be to have the maintainer provide the set of documentation. It will usually not change between distfile releases, so re-rolling the documentation could be part of the port update that the maintainer does. Last but not least, by chance (for once I'm happy with chance :)) you do not have to add DOCS or EXAMPLES to OPTIONS_DEFINE to be able to use them in your ports! So you can use it just like NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES use to work. IE without and make config needed. that mean a single way to define/check for it but 2 different kind of options. Not sure this mail is clear :) I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a usecase for them? Cheers, Uli ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:09:23AM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Jason Helfman wrote on 30.05.2012 03:57: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:29:01PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov thus spake: Hi Baptiste, Am I right that `make rmconfig' isn't working with optionsng? I got this lines: OPTIONS_DEFINE= FIREBIRD SSH SVN X11 FIREBIRD_DESC= Enable firebird support SSH_DESC= Enable ssh support SVN_DESC= Enable subversion support I `make config` and mark couple of them - X11, SVN. Then do `make rmconfig` and got === No user-specified options configured for hydra-7.3. Then do `make config` again and still got this X11 and SVN options marked. Is this a bug or I missing something (I didn't yet read the new Mk's, just the docs)? Thanks. -- Regards, Ruslan Did you define: OPTIONS_DEFAULT= SOMEOPTION1 SOMEOPTION2 Otherwise, this sounds right. -jgh No, this port (security/hydra) has no default options and hasn't in past. But this `make rmconfig` behavior is specific to OPTIONng, so it looks like a bug/undocumented feature of it. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. I'll have a look at it, maybe $something is broken about it. regards, Bapt pgptA63CjYa76.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking if I want the docs -- which I don't really care either way (unless that brings in new dependencies). Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:33:56PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we
do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking
if I want the docs -- which I don't really care either way (unless that
brings in new dependencies).
Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?
You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in OPTIONS_DEFINE
but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't have
the dialog showing up
Just make sure to .include bsd.ports.options.mk in any case.
this is a unvolunteer side effect but this works.
if you don't want the dialog just add NO_DIALOG to your make.conf like I do but
that is another problem.
anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term goal
because they are inconsistent, but what they do should be respected in because
they are useful, and for compatibility DOCS and EXAMPLES are enabled by default.
regards,
Bapt
pgpAbCxE3Sx3G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?
You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in OPTIONS_DEFINE
but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't
have
the dialog showing up
That sounds sensible.
How should users activate/deactivate DOCS and/or EXAMPLES from command
line in this case? Should they use make OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS?
anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term
Right.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:00:57PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?
You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in
OPTIONS_DEFINE
but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't
have
the dialog showing up
That sounds sensible.
How should users activate/deactivate DOCS and/or EXAMPLES from command
line in this case? Should they use make OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS?
exactly!
anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term
Right.
pgpt1mGsCRzKY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these would only cause confusion. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these would only cause confusion. I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want these features are building specialized systems and they know very well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 5/30/2012 2:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these would only cause confusion. I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want these features are building specialized systems and they know very well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. Exactly. And the global option already exists. If someone really did need this per port then portconf or similar make.conf gymnastics are available. The new OPTIONS stuff looks promising, and I think it's a step in the right direction. But please let's not try to make it a one-size-fits-all solution. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these would only cause confusion. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org That is why DOS, NLS and EXAMPLES are on by default regards Bapt pgpS6EpvomJhL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: would only cause confusion. I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want these features are building specialized systems and they know very well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. -- for our commercial systems, we don't install man, docs, examples. and, I would suspect that I would be a little peeved if next time I recompile all the ports, I had to stop and hit 'WITHOUT_PORTDOCS, WITHOUT_PORTEXAMPLES' on every port. Upward compatibility folks, if at all possible. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO *| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 5/30/12 5:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote: If someone really did need this per port then portconf or similar make.conf gymnastics are available. I agree with dougb. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO *| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 5/30/12 5:37 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: That is why DOS, Hey, I want to get away from DOS. is that DOS as in Disk OS? or DOS as in 'WITH_DOS' will crash your system when you pkg_create ? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO *| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 05/30/2012 14:37, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these would only cause confusion. That is why DOS, NLS and EXAMPLES are on by default I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented by default to every user, for every port? If the old NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES knobs are still honored, and if we are not adding OPTIONS for these to every port, then I certainly have no objection to there being default knobs for DOCS and EXAMPLES that maintainers can choose to use for their ports. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Hi, On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented by default to every user, for every port? They are now OPTIONS, but they are not presented to the user by default in 'make config'. Just honored and set by default. If the old NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES knobs are still honored, and if we are not adding OPTIONS for these to every port, then I certainly have no objection to there being default knobs for DOCS and EXAMPLES that maintainers can choose to use for their ports. Correct. They currently are still honored, as well as set if DOCS, EXAMPLES, or NLS are not set to maintain compatibility with unconverted ports. You can see this in bsd.options.mk Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 05/30/2012 19:38, Bryan Drewery wrote: Hi, On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented by default to every user, for every port? They are now OPTIONS, but they are not presented to the user by default in 'make config'. Just honored and set by default. If the old NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES knobs are still honored, and if we are not adding OPTIONS for these to every port, then I certainly have no objection to there being default knobs for DOCS and EXAMPLES that maintainers can choose to use for their ports. Correct. They currently are still honored, as well as set if DOCS, EXAMPLES, or NLS are not set to maintain compatibility with unconverted ports. Thank you for the explanation, I'm glad to see that my concern has already been addressed. You can see this in bsd.options.mk Doubtful. :) -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:38:55PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: Hi, On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented by default to every user, for every port? They are now OPTIONS, but they are not presented to the user by default in 'make config'. Just honored and set by default. If the old NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES knobs are still honored, and if we are not adding OPTIONS for these to every port, then I certainly have no objection to there being default knobs for DOCS and EXAMPLES that maintainers can choose to use for their ports. Correct. They currently are still honored, as well as set if DOCS, EXAMPLES, or NLS are not set to maintain compatibility with unconverted ports. Thank you for claritying my confusing mail :) You can see this in bsd.options.mk Regards, Bryan Drewery pgp8GOPMPypYx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Hi Baptiste, Am I right that `make rmconfig' isn't working with optionsng? I got this lines: OPTIONS_DEFINE= FIREBIRD SSH SVN X11 FIREBIRD_DESC= Enable firebird support SSH_DESC= Enable ssh support SVN_DESC= Enable subversion support I `make config` and mark couple of them - X11, SVN. Then do `make rmconfig` and got === No user-specified options configured for hydra-7.3. Then do `make config` again and still got this X11 and SVN options marked. Is this a bug or I missing something (I didn't yet read the new Mk's, just the docs)? Thanks. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:29:01PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov thus spake: Hi Baptiste, Am I right that `make rmconfig' isn't working with optionsng? I got this lines: OPTIONS_DEFINE= FIREBIRD SSH SVN X11 FIREBIRD_DESC= Enable firebird support SSH_DESC= Enable ssh support SVN_DESC= Enable subversion support I `make config` and mark couple of them - X11, SVN. Then do `make rmconfig` and got === No user-specified options configured for hydra-7.3. Then do `make config` again and still got this X11 and SVN options marked. Is this a bug or I missing something (I didn't yet read the new Mk's, just the docs)? Thanks. -- Regards, Ruslan Did you define: OPTIONS_DEFAULT= SOMEOPTION1 SOMEOPTION2 Otherwise, this sounds right. -jgh -- Jason Helfman FreeBSD Committer | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Jason Helfman wrote on 30.05.2012 03:57: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:29:01PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov thus spake: Hi Baptiste, Am I right that `make rmconfig' isn't working with optionsng? I got this lines: OPTIONS_DEFINE= FIREBIRD SSH SVN X11 FIREBIRD_DESC= Enable firebird support SSH_DESC= Enable ssh support SVN_DESC= Enable subversion support I `make config` and mark couple of them - X11, SVN. Then do `make rmconfig` and got === No user-specified options configured for hydra-7.3. Then do `make config` again and still got this X11 and SVN options marked. Is this a bug or I missing something (I didn't yet read the new Mk's, just the docs)? Thanks. -- Regards, Ruslan Did you define: OPTIONS_DEFAULT= SOMEOPTION1 SOMEOPTION2 Otherwise, this sounds right. -jgh No, this port (security/hydra) has no default options and hasn't in past. But this `make rmconfig` behavior is specific to OPTIONng, so it looks like a bug/undocumented feature of it. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:41:32PM -0400, Erwin Lansing wrote: Hi, portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. The new framework not only streamlines the current inconsistencies, but also adds new paradigms like exclusive options, one-of-many, many-of-many, and more. All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Documentation on how to use it available here http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/rendered/porters-optionsng.html#MAKEFILE-OPTIONS patch here: http://people.freebsd.org/~portmgr/optionsng.diff The two only ports that are known broken ghostscript8 and ghostscript9: patch available here: http://people.freebsd.org/~portmgr/ghostscript-optionsng.patch I'd like to specially thanks crees for help on documentation. regards, Bapt___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org A bug was spotted by Bryan Drewery and has been fixed, http://people.freebsd.org/~portmgr/optionsng.diff has been updated. FYI the bug was: the option framework did take correctly the default values, when set with the old OPTIONS format. regards, Bapt pgph2jH1AZZko.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Erwin Lansing ha scritto: portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. Is it correct? -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:34:37AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: Erwin Lansing ha scritto: portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. Is it correct? You are right the documentation is not clear concerning that point. In this implementation option is enforced at all, only default value are set by the bsd.options.mk which are DOCS and NLS. crees can you fix that part of the doc? the infomation I sent to you first weren't clear about it, sorry. So currently DOCS and NLS are set on if they are defined by the maintainer and only if they are defined by the maintainer. So no change expected at all from the current defaults. Bapt pgpXuloZgQ0nO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
On 12 May 2012 14:18, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:34:37AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: Erwin Lansing ha scritto: portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. Is it correct? You are right the documentation is not clear concerning that point. In this implementation option is enforced at all, only default value are set by the bsd.options.mk which are DOCS and NLS. crees can you fix that part of the doc? the infomation I sent to you first weren't clear about it, sorry. So currently DOCS and NLS are set on if they are defined by the maintainer and only if they are defined by the maintainer. So no change expected at all from the current defaults. Done. I'll get the final references to WITH_ etc converted as soon as I can. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
