- Update to OptionsNG Generated with FreeBSD Port Tools 0.99_6 (mode: change, diff: ports)
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->madpilot I'll take it.
Hi, Looking at your patch I made some modifications. Is there a specific reason why you're not using the standard options descriptions from ports/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk? While not strictly mandatory, unless you need to insert a very specific content in the description it's preferred to use those for generic "support" toggles. Please revise the attached patch, if it is acceptable to you. Thanks! -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
On 10/15/12 15:19, Guido Falsi wrote: > Hi, > > Looking at your patch I made some modifications. > > Is there a specific reason why you're not using the standard options > descriptions from ports/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk? > > While not strictly mandatory, unless you need to insert a very specific > content in the description it's preferred to use those for generic > "support" toggles. > > Please revise the attached patch, if it is acceptable to you. > > Thanks! > Originally I figured that the descriptions in bsd.options.desc.mk would lead to more confusion when someone looked at the options for transcode, that is why I overrode them in the port. I know that using the pre-set descriptions may be preferred, but I still tried to make sure that the overridden descriptions were not ambiguous. Thanks, Naram Qashat
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:30:55PM -0400, Naram Qashat wrote: > On 10/15/12 15:19, Guido Falsi wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Looking at your patch I made some modifications. > > > >Is there a specific reason why you're not using the standard options > >descriptions from ports/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk? > > > >While not strictly mandatory, unless you need to insert a very specific > >content in the description it's preferred to use those for generic > >"support" toggles. > > > >Please revise the attached patch, if it is acceptable to you. > > > >Thanks! > > > > Originally I figured that the descriptions in bsd.options.desc.mk > would lead to more confusion when someone looked at the options for > transcode, that is why I overrode them in the port. I know that > using the pre-set descriptions may be preferred, but I still tried > to make sure that the overridden descriptions were not ambiguous. I see. I'd like to note that the "Enable" word at the start of every description is a little redundant, since the checkbox is there to shouw if that option is enablesd or not. "Enable" words where intentionally removed from the descriptions in various instances as redundant. See this commit: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=299905 Once the "Enable" word is removed some of the descriptions are almost the same as the global ones. Also I renamed some of the toggles to match the common ones, this is best practice, so that people can override things globally from their make.conf or command line. I don't mean to force you to change this, but the enable wod goes against common practice int he ports collection and should be avoided. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
On 10/16/12 05:24, Guido Falsi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:30:55PM -0400, Naram Qashat wrote: >> On 10/15/12 15:19, Guido Falsi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Looking at your patch I made some modifications. >>> >>> Is there a specific reason why you're not using the standard options >>> descriptions from ports/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk? >>> >>> While not strictly mandatory, unless you need to insert a very specific >>> content in the description it's preferred to use those for generic >>> "support" toggles. >>> >>> Please revise the attached patch, if it is acceptable to you. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >> Originally I figured that the descriptions in bsd.options.desc.mk >> would lead to more confusion when someone looked at the options for >> transcode, that is why I overrode them in the port. I know that >> using the pre-set descriptions may be preferred, but I still tried >> to make sure that the overridden descriptions were not ambiguous. > > I see. I'd like to note that the "Enable" word at the start of every > description is a little redundant, since the checkbox is there to shouw > if that option is enablesd or not. "Enable" words where intentionally > removed from the descriptions in various instances as redundant. > > See this commit: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=299905 > > Once the "Enable" word is removed some of the descriptions are almost > the same as the global ones. > > Also I renamed some of the toggles to match the common ones, this is > best practice, so that people can override things globally from their > make.conf or command line. > > I don't mean to force you to change this, but the enable wod goes > against common practice int he ports collection and should be avoided. > In that case, the changes are fine. Feel free to commit them. Thanks, Naram Qashat
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed. Thanks!