On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:16:40PM -0500, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > Most of people sems happy with the new framework options however it could > > be yet > > better, here is an attempt to improve it: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/options%2bradio%2bgroup.diff > > > Among the complains people tends to find that OPTIONS_SINGLE aka 1 among N > > is > > nice but the 0 or 1 among N is not user friendly. So here is OPTIONS_RADIO > > which > > is natively 0 or 1 among N without the need of adding its name to > > OPTIONS_DEFINE. > > > if everyone is happy with OPTIONS_RADIO, then the 0 or 1 feature from > > OPTIONS_SINGLE will be removed later once the ports needed that has been > > converted to OPTIONS_RADIO > > > Another feature request I received was the ability to group options into a > > named > > group, to avoid some sort of sorting of option name (nginx is a good > > example in > > my mind that could benefit it. So OPTIONS_GROUP has been created > > OPTIONS_GROUP works exactly the same as OPTIONS_MULTI except that is accept > > 0 or > > N among M > > > if you have better name to propose feel free :) > > > Please test, send you remark etc. > > > regards, > > Bapt > > Would this extended options framework be accessed by configuration dialog, or > would it be by editing make.conf or other file? > This hasn't change meaning that you can fully configure from make.conf using OPTIONS_SET/OPTIONS_UNSET or name_SET/name_UNSET or use make config to configure them.
> There needs to be a way to better make clear when exactly one, or at most one > of a group of options can be selected. NetBSD pkgsrc makes this clear with > the Makefile or options.mk . I have had instances when, after configuring > with the dialog, a port couldn't build because I had selected two options not > compatible with each other, and no warning before the port build failed. This shouldn't happen anymore since new option framework as the check-config phase is there to fail if you have chosen incompatible option, which since june you should be free of those failures for all ports that have been converted. > > In most cases, I was able to build the port after reading the error message > and reconfiguring the options to avoid the incompatible mix. > If you encounter one of those failures again then you should report it to the maintainer, this is a bug and should not happen. regards, Bapt
pgpkHIXI7pGcg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
