Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework
from Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org: There's a What users need to know section here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Regards, Bryan Drewery That looks helpful, Thanks! There are also many other useful FreeBSD-pertinent guides on wiki.freebsd.org . Tom ___ 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 8 June 2012 23:01, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 06/08/2012 06:34, Chris Rees wrote: So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? With Baptiste's latest work on backwards compatibility this should work fine now, however you should double-check that the same WITH_/WITHOUT_ knobs you have in your port.conf are still the ones defined in the ports' Makefiles. I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. Chris, as much as I appreciate your efforts in doing this, asking the user to run scripts to convert stuff is not the answer. We need a ports system that is transparently backwards compatible for users, not one where they constantly have to jump through hoops to make things work again that have worked fine for them for years. Oh no, you're absolutely right, however people do need to migrate their configurations so we're not supporting this in ten years from now. The compat code needs ripping out at some point, and the more time people have to migrate (and test!) the better. 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
from Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org: My understanding is that one of the benefits of the new OPTIONS On 06/08/2012 06:34, Chris Rees wrote: So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? With Baptiste's latest work on backwards compatibility this should work fine now, however you should double-check that the same WITH_/WITHOUT_ knobs you have in your port.conf are still the ones defined in the ports' Makefiles. I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. Chris, as much as I appreciate your efforts in doing this, asking the user to run scripts to convert stuff is not the answer. We need a ports system that is transparently backwards compatible for users, not one where they constantly have to jump through hoops to make things work again that have worked fine for them for years. Doug Where is all this about the new options framework documented? There ought to be something in UPDATING file telling users what to do to stay properly in sync. Tom ___ 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 09/06/2012 09:38, Thomas Mueller wrote: Where is all this about the new options framework documented? Here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html There ought to be something in UPDATING file telling users what to do to stay properly in sync. Users basically don't need to do anything different at the moment. OPTIONS dialogues may look a bit different, and the descriptive text might change a bit, but they work in exactly the same way from the user perspective. If you have WITH_FOO or WITHOUT_FOO definitions in /etc/make.conf or similar, then you will probably need to do some editing at some point. Not all WITH_/WITHOUT_ options are going: just the ones that are controlled by OPTIONS dialogues. For now, I believe everything should still keep working as before -- deleting the compatibility code is planned, but it's going to be a while yet before the ports is anywhere near ready for that to happen. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 9 June 2012 09:38, Thomas Mueller muelle...@insightbb.com wrote: from Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org: My understanding is that one of the benefits of the new OPTIONS On 06/08/2012 06:34, Chris Rees wrote: So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? With Baptiste's latest work on backwards compatibility this should work fine now, however you should double-check that the same WITH_/WITHOUT_ knobs you have in your port.conf are still the ones defined in the ports' Makefiles. I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. Chris, as much as I appreciate your efforts in doing this, asking the user to run scripts to convert stuff is not the answer. We need a ports system that is transparently backwards compatible for users, not one where they constantly have to jump through hoops to make things work again that have worked fine for them for years. Doug Where is all this about the new options framework documented? There ought to be something in UPDATING file telling users what to do to stay properly in sync. OPTIONSng is fully backwards compatible-- there have been a few nits that have been ironed out. Currently there is no need to do anything to ensure that everything works fine-- your legacy configuration will work for the foreseeable future. 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 6/9/2012 3:38 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: Where is all this about the new options framework documented? There's a What users need to know section here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Regards, Bryan Drewery ___ 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 6/4/2012 8:30 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
On 6/3/2012 1:44 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hi,
The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems
directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed.
regards,
Bapt
A common question I have seen is how to support 0 or 1 in the SINGLE list.
You can achieve this by adding the SINGLE group to the OPTIONS_DEFINE.
For example:
OPTIONS_DEFINE= DB_OVERRIDE
OPTIONS_SINGLE= DB_OVERRIDE
OPTIONS_SINGLE_DB_OVERRIDE= BDB4 BDB1
OPTIONS_DEFAULT= DB_OVERRIDE BDB4
DB_OVERRIDE_DESC= Override DB backend instead of default DBM
BDB1_DESC=Use Berkeley DB 1
BDB4_DESC=Use Berkeley DB =2
Here DB_OVERRIDE must be selected to select either of BDB4 or BDB1.
This gives you 0 or 1 on the BDB4/BDB1.
You can do the same with MULTI as well to achieve 0 or many. This has
been documented in the handbook now.
Another common question is how to check if an option is not set. We all
try !${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} to find it does not work.
Use empty():
.if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-foo
.else
CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-foo
.endif
Wiki is updated on this, handbook being updated.
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework
Bryan Drewery wrote:
Another common question is how to check if an option is not set. We all
try !${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} to find it does not work.
$ cat Makefile
all:
.if ${LIST:MFOO}
@echo HAVE FOO
.endif
.if !${LIST:MFOO}
@echo NO FOO
.endif
$ make LIST=FOO
HAVE FOO
$ make LIST=BAR
NO FOO
Seems to work fine. What am I missing?
___
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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 06/03/12 14:44, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: Hi, The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. Some issue seems still to be there regarding backward compatibility but I haven't been able to reproduced any of the one that are supposed to be left. The porters handbook has been updated and the new option framework is well documented (thank you crees) Please convert as soon as possible your ports to the new framework. As you may already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more accurate than a technical one, users might not know the technical details but they know what functionnality they do want. All the complaints I found in the past concerning the old framework have been addressed in the new one, you can have mutually exclusive options, checked by the framework, you can have group options, you can have 0 or only 1 option among N or 0 or N options among M. be creative, most of the use case should be doable. for 3 special options: DOCS, EXAMPLES and NLS, you do not need to activate them in OPTIONS_DEFAULT as the framework already activate them. you also do not need to add them to OPTIONS_DEFINE if you only use one of them, do avoid having the dialog UI to show up. DOCS in long term maybe used to replace NOPORTDOCS (NOPORTDOCS is defined has a backward compatibility if as a user you remove it). Same goes for EXAMPLES - NOPORTEXAMPLES and NLS - WITHOUT_NLS In my concern the priority is: 1/ convert all the old OPTIONS: Here is a list of them http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/ConvertingToOptionsNG 2/ replace all the knobs by optionsNg options (replacing the KNOBS file by bsd.options.desc regards, Bapt So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? Thanks, Naram Qashat ___ 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On Jun 8, 2012 2:32 PM, Naram Qashat cyberb...@cyberbotx.com wrote: On 06/03/12 14:44, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: Hi, The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. Some issue seems still to be there regarding backward compatibility but I haven't been able to reproduced any of the one that are supposed to be left. The porters handbook has been updated and the new option framework is well documented (thank you crees) Please convert as soon as possible your ports to the new framework. As you may already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more accurate than a technical one, users might not know the technical details but they know what functionnality they do want. All the complaints I found in the past concerning the old framework have been addressed in the new one, you can have mutually exclusive options, checked by the framework, you can have group options, you can have 0 or only 1 option among N or 0 or N options among M. be creative, most of the use case should be doable. for 3 special options: DOCS, EXAMPLES and NLS, you do not need to activate them in OPTIONS_DEFAULT as the framework already activate them. you also do not need to add them to OPTIONS_DEFINE if you only use one of them, do avoid having the dialog UI to show up. DOCS in long term maybe used to replace NOPORTDOCS (NOPORTDOCS is defined has a backward compatibility if as a user you remove it). Same goes for EXAMPLES - NOPORTEXAMPLES and NLS - WITHOUT_NLS In my concern the priority is: 1/ convert all the old OPTIONS: Here is a list of them http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/ConvertingToOptionsNG 2/ replace all the knobs by optionsNg options (replacing the KNOBS file by bsd.options.desc regards, Bapt So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 6/8/2012 8:14 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Bryan Drewery wrote:
Another common question is how to check if an option is not set. We all
try !${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} to find it does not work.
$ cat Makefile
all:
.if ${LIST:MFOO}
@echo HAVE FOO
.endif
.if !${LIST:MFOO}
@echo NO FOO
.endif
$ make LIST=FOO
HAVE FOO
$ make LIST=BAR
NO FOO
Seems to work fine. What am I missing?
It does not work in all situations. I can't recall the specific case
right now, but have several reports of it not working.
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
___
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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:44:48PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more OPTIONS=PROFILE Build a profiling library Off This seems to be a common option (many math/ ports use it), yet it's not in bsd.options.desc.mk. Should it be added to it? Or shall I define it for my port (math/slatec)? -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 6/8/2012 9:09 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:44:48PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more OPTIONS=PROFILE Build a profiling library Off This seems to be a common option (many math/ ports use it), yet it's not in bsd.options.desc.mk. Should it be added to it? Or shall I define it for my port (math/slatec)? If it's common between many ports, do add it to bsd.options.desk.mk. However, just because it is there, it doesn't mean you have to use it. If it makes sense to override the DESC for your port, do that too. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 06/08/2012 06:34, Chris Rees wrote: So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? With Baptiste's latest work on backwards compatibility this should work fine now, however you should double-check that the same WITH_/WITHOUT_ knobs you have in your port.conf are still the ones defined in the ports' Makefiles. I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. Chris, as much as I appreciate your efforts in doing this, asking the user to run scripts to convert stuff is not the answer. We need a ports system that is transparently backwards compatible for users, not one where they constantly have to jump through hoops to make things work again that have worked fine for them for years. 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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
As not all KNOBS are documented in /usr/ports/KNOBS I remember that somebody used some script that parsed ports for them... Would be handy to have full list of possible knobs, especially as they can be changing now. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/HEADSUP-Please-convert-your-ports-to-new-options-framework-tp5714579p5716674.html Sent from the freebsd-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.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] Please convert your ports to new options framework
On 6/3/2012 1:44 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: Hi, The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. regards, Bapt A common question I have seen is how to support 0 or 1 in the SINGLE list. You can achieve this by adding the SINGLE group to the OPTIONS_DEFINE. For example: OPTIONS_DEFINE= DB_OVERRIDE OPTIONS_SINGLE= DB_OVERRIDE OPTIONS_SINGLE_DB_OVERRIDE= BDB4 BDB1 OPTIONS_DEFAULT=DB_OVERRIDE BDB4 DB_OVERRIDE_DESC= Override DB backend instead of default DBM BDB1_DESC= Use Berkeley DB 1 BDB4_DESC= Use Berkeley DB =2 Here DB_OVERRIDE must be selected to select either of BDB4 or BDB1. This gives you 0 or 1 on the BDB4/BDB1. Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework
Hi, The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. Some issue seems still to be there regarding backward compatibility but I haven't been able to reproduced any of the one that are supposed to be left. The porters handbook has been updated and the new option framework is well documented (thank you crees) Please convert as soon as possible your ports to the new framework. As you may already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more accurate than a technical one, users might not know the technical details but they know what functionnality they do want. All the complaints I found in the past concerning the old framework have been addressed in the new one, you can have mutually exclusive options, checked by the framework, you can have group options, you can have 0 or only 1 option among N or 0 or N options among M. be creative, most of the use case should be doable. for 3 special options: DOCS, EXAMPLES and NLS, you do not need to activate them in OPTIONS_DEFAULT as the framework already activate them. you also do not need to add them to OPTIONS_DEFINE if you only use one of them, do avoid having the dialog UI to show up. DOCS in long term maybe used to replace NOPORTDOCS (NOPORTDOCS is defined has a backward compatibility if as a user you remove it). Same goes for EXAMPLES - NOPORTEXAMPLES and NLS - WITHOUT_NLS In my concern the priority is: 1/ convert all the old OPTIONS: Here is a list of them http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/ConvertingToOptionsNG 2/ replace all the knobs by optionsNg options (replacing the KNOBS file by bsd.options.desc regards, Bapt pgpicvEawKLnn.pgp Description: PGP signature
