On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:49:42PM +0100, Mij wrote: > > On 02/mar/07, at 17:49, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:06:14AM +0000, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote: > >>clsung 2007-03-01 10:06:14 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD ports repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> security/sshguard Makefile > >> Log: > >> - respect maintainer's insist on interactive part, > >> even IS_INTERACTIVE is discouraged > > not glad to see such comment > > > >This is disappointing. Can the maintainer explain why? > > the app requires the user to choose what firewall to support for > building: IPFW or PF. > They are in XOR and there is no reasonable default in this. > > Cheng-Lung chose PF default and removed is_interactive. > A feedback request would have avoided this qui pro quo.
IS_INTERACTIVE should *never* be used when there is a possible alternative. The obvious choice here (if you really cannot decide on a default) is to make your port in two variants, one a slave of the other, which enable either option. > >And what is this? :) > > this used to be ".error blah" for checking the options' XOR-ness, > then removed because > options are also set when deinstalling/cleaning etc. Definitely > useless, replacing with a > comment about the problem appears the best to do. Actually I dunno > why this made its way > in the submission :) OK, I assume you'll fix this? Kris
pgp933VNJHDbm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
