Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Andree wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am 23.05.2013 07:45, schrieb Baptiste Daroussin: > > hi, > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > popping > > up all the time. > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > time there > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > This would subvert the whole options story. > > I propose to not show the dialog for standard options, such as DOCS (née > PORTDOCS), EXAMPLES, NLS and thereabouts. > > And IF we show-on-changed, we need to highlight the changed options and > place the cursor on the first displayed one, to not waste everybody's time. > YES! I get tired of looking through the long list of options for ports like ffmpeg or apache trying to spot the change! Some highlight or visible flag would be very nice. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 23.05.2013 07:45, schrieb Baptiste Daroussin: > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping > up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > there > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. This would subvert the whole options story. I propose to not show the dialog for standard options, such as DOCS (née PORTDOCS), EXAMPLES, NLS and thereabouts. And IF we show-on-changed, we need to highlight the changed options and place the cursor on the first displayed one, to not waste everybody's time. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlGjmXkACgkQvmGDOQUufZVt+QCfarE1IN/djczxlJIqPTaP3kmR W+YAn0eNI0bSqM2/7Ys9RyoAgqLJeFup =6v6T -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Hi,
On May 23, 2013 2:06 AM, "Baptiste Daroussin" wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 05:21:35PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Baptiste Daroussin wrote
> > in <20130523054541.gh96...@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>:
> >
> > ba> hi,
> > ba>
> > ba> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration
dialog popping
> > ba> up all the time.
> > ba>
> > ba> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog
each time there
> > ba> is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make
config?
> > ba>
> > ba> Just a proposal, please give your opinion.
> > ba>
> > ba> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change.
> >
> > I am using the attached patch locally to make the four global knobs
> > silent. This is a kind of overkill, but "adding OPTIONS_NOMENU and
> > making the do-config target skip the dialog invocation when all of
> > values in OPTIONS_DEFINE are defined in OPTIONS_NOMENU" would be a
> > compromise. If one wants dialog for the global knobs, OPTIONS_NOMENU
> > can always be redefined in make.conf.
> >
> > I think each port should define their knobs in OPTIONS_DEFINE even
> > for global ones like DOCS because it is more consistent.
> >
> > -- Hiroki
>
>
> Great thank you, I'll base my work on this patch.
>
> regards,
> Bapt
>
> > Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
> > ===
> > --- Mk/bsd.port.mk(revision 317459)
> > +++ Mk/bsd.port.mk(working copy)
> > @@ -6128,6 +6128,9 @@
> > .undef opt
> > .endif # pre-config
> >
> > +OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT?=5
> > +OPTIONS_NOMENU?= DOCS NLS EXAMPLES IPV6
> > +TPUT_CMD?= /usr/bin/tput
> > .if !target(do-config)
> > do-config:
> > .if empty(ALL_OPTIONS) && empty(OPTIONS_SINGLE) &&
empty(OPTIONS_MULTI) && empty(OPTIONS_RADIO) && empty(OPTIONS_GROUP)
> > @@ -6144,13 +6147,41 @@
> > ${MKDIR} $${optionsdir} 2> /dev/null) || \
> > (${ECHO_MSG} "===> Cannot create $${optionsdir}, check
permissions"; exit 1)
> > .endif
> > - @TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
> > + @if [ "${_RECURSIVE}" != 1 ]; then \
> > + for opt in ${PORT_OPTIONS}; do \
> > + oskip=0; \
> > + for nom in ${OPTIONS_NOMENU}; do \
> > + case $$opt in \
> > + $$nom) oskip=1 ;; \
> > + esac; \
> > + done; \
> > + case $$oskip in \
> > + 0) break ;; \
> > + esac; \
> > + done; \
> > + else \
> > + oskip=0; \
> > + fi; \
> > + if [ "$$oskip" = 1 ]; then \
> > + trap "${TPUT_CMD} me" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
> > + ${TPUT_CMD} md; \
> > + ${ECHO_MSG} "===> This port has user configuration
options."; \
> > + if read -t ${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} \
> > + -p "===> To open the configuration menu, hit enter key in
${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} seconds." \
> > + DUMMYARG; then \
> > + oskip=0; \
> > + fi; \
> > + ${TPUT_CMD} me; \
> > + fi; \
> > + TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
> > trap "${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; exit 1" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
> > + if [ "$$oskip" = 0 ]; then \
> > ${SETENV} ${D4P_ENV} ${SH}
${PORTSDIR}/Tools/scripts/dialog4ports.sh $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} || { \
> > ${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; \
> > ${ECHO_MSG} "===> Options unchanged"; \
> > exit 0; \
> > }; \
> > + fi; \
> > ${ECHO_CMD}; \
> > if [ ! -e $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} ]; then \
> > ${ECHO_MSG} "===> No user-specified options to save for
${PKGNAME}"; \
> > @@ -6196,7 +6227,7 @@
> > config-recursive:
> > @${ECHO_MSG} "===> Setting user-specified options for ${PKGNAME}
and dependencies";
> > @for dir in ${.CURDIR} $$(${ALL-DEPENDS-LIST}); do \
> > - (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} config-conditional); \
> > + (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=1 config-conditional); \
> > done
> > .endif # config-recursive
> >
> > @@ -6204,7 +6235,7 @@
> > config-conditional: pre-config
> > .if defined(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) && !defined(NO_DIALOG)
> > . if !defined(_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) ||
${COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O} != ${_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O}
> > - @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} do-config;
> > + @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=${_RECURSIVE} do-config;
> > . endif
> > .endif
> > .endif # config-conditional
>
>
>
Small nit: in the above patch, one could use true and false to assign to
oskip instead of 1 and 0, and test for $oskip. Methinks this would simplify
the code and improve readability.
Jos
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
We should step back and "define the problem". The problem IMHO is that we have optimized for users who wish to save the maximum space on their systems, at the expense of users who want to install and upgrade ports with the minimum fuss. IMHO we should do the opposite. I think the number of users that care about whether p5-Foo-Bar installs its examples is zero. And yet, those were the dialogs I was presented last night on installing a 9.0 system with the latest ports tree. This seems wrong. Surely we can figure out some global-settings-editor? And, if a value has been set by that tool, and a port's metavariables haven't changed, skip the configuration dialog? mcl ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Adam Vande More wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: There are already two "native" ways to do this: make config-recursive use a ports management tool like portmaster/portupgrade portmaster certainly does not do this, nor make config-recursive(although it faster than the portmaster dialog). As I already mentioned, portupgrade used to give them to you all at once, no interruptions between IIRC. As it stands right now, 'portmaster x11/kde4' on a clean install pretty much guarantees you'll be console baby sitting for 1/2 hr or more unless you use the accept defaults option. To put it another, I think the default make behavior should be more akin 'make config-recursive' rather than take each OPTION as it comes. portmaster has always shown all the config dialogs before starting a build. Granted, it can take a while. portupgrade can do it with the -c or -C options, but does not do it by default. Or didn't last I looked. ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On 23 May 2013 16:38, "Freddie Cash" wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> Please read the docs before stating things that are incorrect. > > > I've read the docs, I've installed ports, I've mangled my make.conf to make it work in The New World Order. >> >> We can still set things globally, and it's not a hack. > > Compared to the simplicity of how things were before, it's a hack. Don't confuse familiarity with simplicity. Just because you've had to cope with a small change doesn't mean it's a bad one. 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: > There are already two "native" ways to do this: > make config-recursive > use a ports management tool like portmaster/portupgrade portmaster certainly does not do this, nor make config-recursive(although it faster than the portmaster dialog). As I already mentioned, portupgrade used to give them to you all at once, no interruptions between IIRC. As it stands right now, 'portmaster x11/kde4' on a clean install pretty much guarantees you'll be console baby sitting for 1/2 hr or more unless you use the accept defaults option. To put it another, I think the default make behavior should be more akin 'make config-recursive' rather than take each OPTION as it comes. -- Adam Vande More ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > > > Please read the docs before stating things that are incorrect. > > > I've read the docs, I've installed ports, I've mangled my make.conf to make > it work in The New World Order. > > > We can still set things globally, and it's not a hack. > > > Compared to the simplicity of how things were before, it's a hack. Sure simplicity about unpredictable WITH or WITHOUT where you didn't know which one was tested by the ports. When the options set globally in make.conf were not inherited in the dialog options When it was impossible to set option per ports in make.conf without third party portsconf or without a ugly hack base of .CURDUR:M*/... sure current version is a hack and previous one was reliable and clean. pgpkrEVFGVMDN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:51:40 +0200 Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > Le 23/05/2013 08:36, Xin Li a écrit : > > On 5/22/13 10:45 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> hi, > > > >> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > >> dialog popping up all the time. > > > >> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog > >> each time there is a changed option but only when the user > >> explicitly type make config? > > > >> Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > >> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > I think this would be a good idea. If the a majority of users need > > to change default options, then the default should be changed. > > > > Not really related to the dialog, but maybe, I mean maybe, we can > > teach package tools to just go ahead download and install package, > > if the options being chosen matches the package options, if the host > > system meets certain criteria (e.g. is a supported release or > > -CURRENT) and the package is available? > > > > Another idea is to collect the options from user, and send it as a > > feedback (the user have reviewed the default and either accepted it, > > or have changed). This would help port maintainers to decide which > > options should be made default, etc. > > What you're thinking about is a sort of intelligent dialog ? > > In my opinion, dialog should *not* pop-up and take options like this: > > * A default option changed by user has changed -> take user's one > * All default options unchanged by user-> take new defaults That way it's impossible to ever change default options for a port though, otherwise users which were happy with the previous default configuration end up in big trouble on update - unless ports is smart enough to tell that the installed versions was built using a port skeleton that had a different set of default options. -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > Please read the docs before stating things that are incorrect. I've read the docs, I've installed ports, I've mangled my make.conf to make it work in The New World Order. > We can still set things globally, and it's not a hack. > Compared to the simplicity of how things were before, it's a hack. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:32:20AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:45:42AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > > popping > > > up all the time. > > > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > > time there > > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > > > regards, > > > Bapt > > > > I am strongly against it. Firstly, it's against POLA, secondly, while it > > hides complexity of the ports system it also hides its biggest > > advantage. > > You'll never know which knobs the ports you want to build offer and new > > users will never find out how to build an Apache web server with PHP > > support. > > > > My proposal get rid of the nagging NLS and DOCS window, ask the user > > initially if they want NLS and DOCS and enable/disable it globally. > > Second, encourage the use of portmaster to install new ports, which > > recursively displays the OPTIONS dialog and does this much faster than > > make config-recursive. > > That way you can set/unset all OPTIONS, go to bed and don't find an > > unanswered dialog in the next morning. > > > > I agree. The dialog needs to appear if there are no saved options for the > port (thus saving the options). And it needs to appear if the list of > options has changed or if the defaults have changed from what's saved in > /var/db/ports/. > > If the defaults are the same as what's saved in /var/db/ports/ then the > options window does not need to appear. > > IOW, the way the ports tree worked before we lost the ability to set things > globally in /etc/make.conf (although it appears a convoluted hack has been > added to make this work). We never lost the ability to set globally in make.conf just a new consistent way has been added. pgpDFXxEjfhvO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On 23 May 2013 16:32, "Freddie Cash" wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:45:42AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > > popping > > > up all the time. > > > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > > time there > > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > > > regards, > > > Bapt > > > > I am strongly against it. Firstly, it's against POLA, secondly, while it > > hides complexity of the ports system it also hides its biggest > > advantage. > > You'll never know which knobs the ports you want to build offer and new > > users will never find out how to build an Apache web server with PHP > > support. > > > > My proposal get rid of the nagging NLS and DOCS window, ask the user > > initially if they want NLS and DOCS and enable/disable it globally. > > Second, encourage the use of portmaster to install new ports, which > > recursively displays the OPTIONS dialog and does this much faster than > > make config-recursive. > > That way you can set/unset all OPTIONS, go to bed and don't find an > > unanswered dialog in the next morning. > > > > I agree. The dialog needs to appear if there are no saved options for the > port (thus saving the options). And it needs to appear if the list of > options has changed or if the defaults have changed from what's saved in > /var/db/ports/. > > If the defaults are the same as what's saved in /var/db/ports/ then the > options window does not need to appear. > > IOW, the way the ports tree worked before we lost the ability to set things > globally in /etc/make.conf (although it appears a convoluted hack has been > added to make this work). Please read the docs before stating things that are incorrect. We can still set things globally, and it's not a hack. 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Baptiste Daroussin > wrote: > > hi, > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > popping > > up all the time. > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > time there > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > regards, > > Bapt > > I would rather the current behavior remained or even better would be > if there was a native way to queue up all the config screen like > portupgrade does(at least it did when I last used it, it's been > awhile). It's not nearly as painful to answer them in bulk even if > queue generation takes awhile. > > There are already two "native" ways to do this: make config-recursive use a ports management tool like portmaster/portupgrade -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:45:42AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > hi, > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > popping > > up all the time. > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > time there > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > regards, > > Bapt > > I am strongly against it. Firstly, it's against POLA, secondly, while it > hides complexity of the ports system it also hides its biggest > advantage. > You'll never know which knobs the ports you want to build offer and new > users will never find out how to build an Apache web server with PHP > support. > > My proposal get rid of the nagging NLS and DOCS window, ask the user > initially if they want NLS and DOCS and enable/disable it globally. > Second, encourage the use of portmaster to install new ports, which > recursively displays the OPTIONS dialog and does this much faster than > make config-recursive. > That way you can set/unset all OPTIONS, go to bed and don't find an > unanswered dialog in the next morning. > I agree. The dialog needs to appear if there are no saved options for the port (thus saving the options). And it needs to appear if the list of options has changed or if the defaults have changed from what's saved in /var/db/ports/. If the defaults are the same as what's saved in /var/db/ports/ then the options window does not need to appear. IOW, the way the ports tree worked before we lost the ability to set things globally in /etc/make.conf (although it appears a convoluted hack has been added to make this work). -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Le 23/05/2013 08:36, Xin Li a écrit : > On 5/22/13 10:45 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> hi, > >> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration >> dialog popping up all the time. > >> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog >> each time there is a changed option but only when the user >> explicitly type make config? > >> Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > >> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > I think this would be a good idea. If the a majority of users need to > change default options, then the default should be changed. > > Not really related to the dialog, but maybe, I mean maybe, we can > teach package tools to just go ahead download and install package, if > the options being chosen matches the package options, if the host > system meets certain criteria (e.g. is a supported release or > -CURRENT) and the package is available? > > Another idea is to collect the options from user, and send it as a > feedback (the user have reviewed the default and either accepted it, > or have changed). This would help port maintainers to decide which > options should be made default, etc. What you're thinking about is a sort of intelligent dialog ? In my opinion, dialog should *not* pop-up and take options like this: * A default option changed by user has changed -> take user's one * All default options unchanged by user-> take new defaults And we should let user the choice of the behavior. Also give an automated feedback to default options is not a bad idea. > Cheers, -- Florent Peterschmitt | /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign flor...@peterschmitt.fr| \ / - No HTML/RTF in E-mail +33 (0)6 64 33 97 92 | X - No proprietary attachments http://florent.peterschmitt.fr | / \ - Respect for open standards signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping > up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > there > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > regards, > Bapt I would rather the current behavior remained or even better would be if there was a native way to queue up all the config screen like portupgrade does(at least it did when I last used it, it's been awhile). It's not nearly as painful to answer them in bulk even if queue generation takes awhile. -- Adam Vande More ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, 23 May 2013 15:58:52 +0200 Lars Engels wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:45:42AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > hi, > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > > dialog popping up all the time. > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog > > each time there is a changed option but only when the user > > explicitly type make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > > regards, > > Bapt > > I am strongly against it. Firstly, it's against POLA, secondly, while > it hides complexity of the ports system it also hides its biggest > advantage. > You'll never know which knobs the ports you want to build offer and > new users will never find out how to build an Apache web server with > PHP support. > > My proposal get rid of the nagging NLS and DOCS window, ask the user > initially if they want NLS and DOCS and enable/disable it globally. > Second, encourage the use of portmaster to install new ports, which > recursively displays the OPTIONS dialog and does this much faster than > make config-recursive. > That way you can set/unset all OPTIONS, go to bed and don't find an > unanswered dialog in the next morning. > > Lars > I agree with Lars. -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:45:42AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping > up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > there > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > regards, > Bapt I am strongly against it. Firstly, it's against POLA, secondly, while it hides complexity of the ports system it also hides its biggest advantage. You'll never know which knobs the ports you want to build offer and new users will never find out how to build an Apache web server with PHP support. My proposal get rid of the nagging NLS and DOCS window, ask the user initially if they want NLS and DOCS and enable/disable it globally. Second, encourage the use of portmaster to install new ports, which recursively displays the OPTIONS dialog and does this much faster than make config-recursive. That way you can set/unset all OPTIONS, go to bed and don't find an unanswered dialog in the next morning. Lars pgpd438vBAfsX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > > popping > > up all the time. > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > > there > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > > regards, > > Bapt > > The new dialog4ports has made the dialog much less disruptive than before, > especially when teeing to a log file. > > So now I don't dread the dialog as I used to. > > But it would still be good to be able to set options through make.conf, > comparable to what pkgsrc (NetBSD and ported to other mostly Unix-like OSes) > and portage (Gentoo Linux) do. You can already: OPTIONS_SET/UNSET, vim_SET/UNSET > > I have noticed how DOCS with docbook can be very cumbersome and overdone, how > many different formats do we need? > > And hopefully docbook wouldn't have to be rebuilt every time for different > ports that might require it. > > Tom > pgpFFeGNY1ho1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping > up all the time. > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > there > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > regards, > Bapt The new dialog4ports has made the dialog much less disruptive than before, especially when teeing to a log file. So now I don't dread the dialog as I used to. But it would still be good to be able to set options through make.conf, comparable to what pkgsrc (NetBSD and ported to other mostly Unix-like OSes) and portage (Gentoo Linux) do. I have noticed how DOCS with docbook can be very cumbersome and overdone, how many different formats do we need? And hopefully docbook wouldn't have to be rebuilt every time for different ports that might require it. 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
John Marino wrote: >>> I like the suggestion that if the dialog consists only of globally set >>> options (NLS, DOC, etc) then it shouldn't appear by default. >> >> Except the cases when those options pull in additional dependencies. >> >> In those cases either the dialog should be shown, or the options should >> be disabled by default. > > The issue is that _by definition_ these options are enabled by default. > I'm not sure I agree that an always-enabled option should trigger a > dialog just because it has dependencies. My motivation is that some of those dependencies (especially for DOCS) are quite big (docbook for example). Under no circumstances do I want to waste hours of time building those and all of their dependencies. So, again, silent DOCS/NLS/EXAMPLES when additional dependencies are involved is very, very undesirable. > Doesn't NLS have dependencies? NLS does often mean gettext, yes. > That would already negate the benefit greatly if this suggestion were > followed. If that is a concern, we can actually count how many ports will be affected by such a policy. I expect the number not to be high. For example there are only 13 ports with NLS in the whole 'lang' category. Out of those 13, only 4 have no other options and will require a config dialog under the policy I propose. ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On 5/23/2013 11:25, Vitaly Magerya wrote: I think it is not good idea, because if user don't know regarding options in ports he should do a make config and if it not exist should do a make install in this case we have two action.. Maybe other way for fix these frequent "popping" add needed options to make.conf I like the suggestion that if the dialog consists only of globally set options (NLS, DOC, etc) then it shouldn't appear by default. Except the cases when those options pull in additional dependencies. In those cases either the dialog should be shown, or the options should be disabled by default. The issue is that _by definition_ these options are enabled by default. I'm not sure I agree that an always-enabled option should trigger a dialog just because it has dependencies. Doesn't NLS have dependencies? That would already negate the benefit greatly if this suggestion were followed. ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
>> I think it is not good idea, because if user don't know regarding >> options in ports he should do a make config and if it not exist >> should do a make install in this case we have two action.. >> Maybe other way for fix these frequent "popping" add needed options to >> make.conf > > I like the suggestion that if the dialog consists only of globally set > options (NLS, DOC, etc) then it shouldn't appear by default. Except the cases when those options pull in additional dependencies. In those cases either the dialog should be shown, or the options should be disabled by default. ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On 5/23/2013 11:10, Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote: I think it is not good idea, because if user don't know regarding options in ports he should do a make config and if it not exist should do a make install in this case we have two action.. Maybe other way for fix these frequent "popping" add needed options to make.conf I like the suggestion that if the dialog consists only of globally set options (NLS, DOC, etc) then it shouldn't appear by default. I also think Ilya has a point in general -- how does one know that there are options available to set in the case of default is "no pop?". There would have to be some sort of announcement that along the lines of "no configuration found, using default settings" so the user would have some sign. Even if the configuration is found, it would still be nice to be informed that a port has options (maybe part of pre-configure?) John ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
23.05.2013, 09:48, "Baptiste Daroussin" : > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping > up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > there > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > > regards, > Bapt Hi Bapt, ale@, I think it is not good idea, because if user don't know regarding options in ports he should do a make config and if it not exist should do a make install in this case we have two action.. Maybe other way for fix these frequent "popping" add needed options to make.conf -- With Best Regards, Ilya A. Arkhipov ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 05:21:35PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin wrote
> in <20130523054541.gh96...@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>:
>
> ba> hi,
> ba>
> ba> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog
> popping
> ba> up all the time.
> ba>
> ba> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each
> time there
> ba> is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config?
> ba>
> ba> Just a proposal, please give your opinion.
> ba>
> ba> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change.
>
> I am using the attached patch locally to make the four global knobs
> silent. This is a kind of overkill, but "adding OPTIONS_NOMENU and
> making the do-config target skip the dialog invocation when all of
> values in OPTIONS_DEFINE are defined in OPTIONS_NOMENU" would be a
> compromise. If one wants dialog for the global knobs, OPTIONS_NOMENU
> can always be redefined in make.conf.
>
> I think each port should define their knobs in OPTIONS_DEFINE even
> for global ones like DOCS because it is more consistent.
>
> -- Hiroki
Great thank you, I'll base my work on this patch.
regards,
Bapt
> Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
> ===
> --- Mk/bsd.port.mk(revision 317459)
> +++ Mk/bsd.port.mk(working copy)
> @@ -6128,6 +6128,9 @@
> .undef opt
> .endif # pre-config
>
> +OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT?=5
> +OPTIONS_NOMENU?= DOCS NLS EXAMPLES IPV6
> +TPUT_CMD?= /usr/bin/tput
> .if !target(do-config)
> do-config:
> .if empty(ALL_OPTIONS) && empty(OPTIONS_SINGLE) && empty(OPTIONS_MULTI) &&
> empty(OPTIONS_RADIO) && empty(OPTIONS_GROUP)
> @@ -6144,13 +6147,41 @@
> ${MKDIR} $${optionsdir} 2> /dev/null) || \
> (${ECHO_MSG} "===> Cannot create $${optionsdir}, check permissions";
> exit 1)
> .endif
> - @TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
> + @if [ "${_RECURSIVE}" != 1 ]; then \
> + for opt in ${PORT_OPTIONS}; do \
> + oskip=0; \
> + for nom in ${OPTIONS_NOMENU}; do \
> + case $$opt in \
> + $$nom) oskip=1 ;; \
> + esac; \
> + done; \
> + case $$oskip in \
> + 0) break ;; \
> + esac; \
> + done; \
> + else \
> + oskip=0; \
> + fi; \
> + if [ "$$oskip" = 1 ]; then \
> + trap "${TPUT_CMD} me" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
> + ${TPUT_CMD} md; \
> + ${ECHO_MSG} "===> This port has user configuration options."; \
> + if read -t ${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} \
> + -p "===> To open the configuration menu, hit enter key in
> ${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} seconds." \
> + DUMMYARG; then \
> + oskip=0; \
> + fi; \
> + ${TPUT_CMD} me; \
> + fi; \
> + TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
> trap "${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; exit 1" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
> + if [ "$$oskip" = 0 ]; then \
> ${SETENV} ${D4P_ENV} ${SH} ${PORTSDIR}/Tools/scripts/dialog4ports.sh
> $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} || { \
> ${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; \
> ${ECHO_MSG} "===> Options unchanged"; \
> exit 0; \
> }; \
> + fi; \
> ${ECHO_CMD}; \
> if [ ! -e $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} ]; then \
> ${ECHO_MSG} "===> No user-specified options to save for
> ${PKGNAME}"; \
> @@ -6196,7 +6227,7 @@
> config-recursive:
> @${ECHO_MSG} "===> Setting user-specified options for ${PKGNAME} and
> dependencies";
> @for dir in ${.CURDIR} $$(${ALL-DEPENDS-LIST}); do \
> - (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} config-conditional); \
> + (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=1 config-conditional); \
> done
> .endif # config-recursive
>
> @@ -6204,7 +6235,7 @@
> config-conditional: pre-config
> .if defined(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) && !defined(NO_DIALOG)
> . if !defined(_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) || ${COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O} !=
> ${_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O}
> - @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} do-config;
> + @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=${_RECURSIVE} do-config;
> . endif
> .endif
> .endif # config-conditional
pgpU0eugBZELq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Baptiste Daroussin wrote
in <20130523054541.gh96...@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>:
ba> hi,
ba>
ba> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog
popping
ba> up all the time.
ba>
ba> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time
there
ba> is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config?
ba>
ba> Just a proposal, please give your opinion.
ba>
ba> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change.
I am using the attached patch locally to make the four global knobs
silent. This is a kind of overkill, but "adding OPTIONS_NOMENU and
making the do-config target skip the dialog invocation when all of
values in OPTIONS_DEFINE are defined in OPTIONS_NOMENU" would be a
compromise. If one wants dialog for the global knobs, OPTIONS_NOMENU
can always be redefined in make.conf.
I think each port should define their knobs in OPTIONS_DEFINE even
for global ones like DOCS because it is more consistent.
-- Hiroki
Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
===
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk (revision 317459)
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk (working copy)
@@ -6128,6 +6128,9 @@
.undef opt
.endif # pre-config
+OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT?= 5
+OPTIONS_NOMENU?= DOCS NLS EXAMPLES IPV6
+TPUT_CMD?= /usr/bin/tput
.if !target(do-config)
do-config:
.if empty(ALL_OPTIONS) && empty(OPTIONS_SINGLE) && empty(OPTIONS_MULTI) && empty(OPTIONS_RADIO) && empty(OPTIONS_GROUP)
@@ -6144,13 +6147,41 @@
${MKDIR} $${optionsdir} 2> /dev/null) || \
(${ECHO_MSG} "===> Cannot create $${optionsdir}, check permissions"; exit 1)
.endif
- @TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
+ @if [ "${_RECURSIVE}" != 1 ]; then \
+ for opt in ${PORT_OPTIONS}; do \
+ oskip=0; \
+ for nom in ${OPTIONS_NOMENU}; do \
+case $$opt in \
+$$nom) oskip=1 ;; \
+esac; \
+ done; \
+ case $$oskip in \
+ 0) break ;; \
+ esac; \
+ done; \
+ else \
+ oskip=0; \
+ fi; \
+ if [ "$$oskip" = 1 ]; then \
+ trap "${TPUT_CMD} me" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
+ ${TPUT_CMD} md; \
+ ${ECHO_MSG} "===> This port has user configuration options."; \
+ if read -t ${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} \
+ -p "===> To open the configuration menu, hit enter key in ${OPTIONS_MENUTIMEOUT} seconds." \
+ DUMMYARG; then \
+ oskip=0; \
+ fi; \
+ ${TPUT_CMD} me; \
+ fi; \
+ TMPOPTIONSFILE=$$(mktemp -t portoptions); \
trap "${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; exit 1" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15; \
+ if [ "$$oskip" = 0 ]; then \
${SETENV} ${D4P_ENV} ${SH} ${PORTSDIR}/Tools/scripts/dialog4ports.sh $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} || { \
${RM} -f $${TMPOPTIONSFILE}; \
${ECHO_MSG} "===> Options unchanged"; \
exit 0; \
}; \
+ fi; \
${ECHO_CMD}; \
if [ ! -e $${TMPOPTIONSFILE} ]; then \
${ECHO_MSG} "===> No user-specified options to save for ${PKGNAME}"; \
@@ -6196,7 +6227,7 @@
config-recursive:
@${ECHO_MSG} "===> Setting user-specified options for ${PKGNAME} and dependencies";
@for dir in ${.CURDIR} $$(${ALL-DEPENDS-LIST}); do \
- (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} config-conditional); \
+ (cd $$dir; ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=1 config-conditional); \
done
.endif # config-recursive
@@ -6204,7 +6235,7 @@
config-conditional: pre-config
.if defined(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) && !defined(NO_DIALOG)
. if !defined(_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST) || ${COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O} != ${_FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:O}
- @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} do-config;
+ @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} _RECURSIVE=${_RECURSIVE} do-config;
. endif
.endif
.endif # config-conditional
pgpQFe1esZUAw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 5/22/13 10:45 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > dialog popping up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog > each time there is a changed option but only when the user > explicitly type make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. I think this would be a good idea. If the a majority of users need to change default options, then the default should be changed. Not really related to the dialog, but maybe, I mean maybe, we can teach package tools to just go ahead download and install package, if the options being chosen matches the package options, if the host system meets certain criteria (e.g. is a supported release or - -CURRENT) and the package is available? Another idea is to collect the options from user, and send it as a feedback (the user have reviewed the default and either accepted it, or have changed). This would help port maintainers to decide which options should be made default, etc. Cheers, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRnbkEAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzMakH/A9nMM9Q+ndHEEikjaln/zlM 80xGdMqHMObk9nfoz8xY2xIMbTHdTox3FHtFwTEKEuQjGj9rRbMj16sSrPJG1V0Z P/WtIxdBoR7E4ApHIvdE2qBnN3XLTGIDMsk71ZqWPV2z7jUlPkrsUs5sc0shNQkt GcqYIv/teb0QHVlki++RlxYvh/OvFblXJ1K8GTSh0EZ+5LoFvxtuA1pas82BMSCL otlA4kdNb2B6y/FjyRKZ3DULo+Lq95p216WiWKR7P89XidiKF/CJznRHEmC/XpvP cm3v8lj4Vwr7Fp9cA5k/khAU/GBYYZMbQrY6yRuy9x7t6T0emuQbdPMeyX87KdE= =74VA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Chris Rees ha scritto: I find such behavior very useful, I find annoying the above behavior. If the dialog will not pop-up if the only options are the global ones it'd be much better, IMO. The correct solution to this is to not add those to DEFINE. *If* this is the correct solution, why for months we said committers to add them to DEFINE and now we have 50% ports with them and 50% without? There should be a clear definitive statement on this subject. I don't have a strong preference, but we should choose oon the two: 1) not list them in DEFINE 2) if DEFINE contains only them, not show the popup -- 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:04:21PM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:45:42 +0200 > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > hi, > > > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > > dialog popping up all the time. > > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > > time there is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type > > make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > does not sound like a bad thing. > > How about an entry in /etc/make.conf? Should also be doable to add a macro that will define the default behaviour in make.conf regards, Bapt pgpntffym43ji.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Hi, On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:45:42 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > hi, > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > dialog popping up all the time. > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each > time there is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type > make config? > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. does not sound like a bad thing. How about an entry in /etc/make.conf? Erich ___ 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On 23 May 2013 06:55, "Alex Dupre" wrote: > > Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto: > >> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping >> up all the time. > > > Probably because now every ports that list DOCS/EXAMPLES/NLS pop up the dialog? > > >> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time there >> is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? >> >> Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > > I find such behavior very useful, I find annoying the above behavior. If the dialog will not pop-up if the only options are the global ones it'd be much better, IMO. The correct solution to this is to not add those to DEFINE. 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:55:24AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto: > > A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog > > popping > > up all the time. > > Probably because now every ports that list DOCS/EXAMPLES/NLS pop up the > dialog? I'll see what I can do in that direction > > > What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time > > there > > is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? > > > > Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > > I find such behavior very useful, I find annoying the above behavior. If > the dialog will not pop-up if the only options are the global ones it'd > be much better, IMO. > > -- > Alex Dupre pgp1EHpJHuzL6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto: A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping up all the time. Probably because now every ports that list DOCS/EXAMPLES/NLS pop up the dialog? What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time there is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? Just a proposal, please give your opinion. I find such behavior very useful, I find annoying the above behavior. If the dialog will not pop-up if the only options are the global ones it'd be much better, IMO. -- 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: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
2013-05-23 07:45, Baptiste Daroussin skrev: hi, A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping up all the time. What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time there is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? Just a proposal, please give your opinion. Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. regards, Bapt I would like the present behaviour to stay. A least when there are new options that are default. I'm afraid I would forget to make changes. Thanks /Leslie ___ 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"
Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default?
hi, A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration dialog popping up all the time. What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog each time there is a changed option but only when the user explicitly type make config? Just a proposal, please give your opinion. Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. regards, Bapt pgpIcTObljRSc.pgp Description: PGP signature
