On Wed, 30 May 2012, Alberto Villa wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
meaning descriptions that make more sense, has anyone can improve the
description of an option.
While I really like what bsd.options.desc.mk is supposed to do, I
would like to recommend to any committer/maintainer (and I will
personally submit a patch for the soon-to-come documentation and for
the file itself) to think before always relying on on default option
descriptions.
Sometimes just saying "Enable XXX support" doesn't mean anything to
the user, and a more explanatory text would be far better, explaining
maybe what feature one is about to enable instead of just what he is
going to depend on.
Deja vu:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html#AEN2598
Look at the second tip. That's brand new, added because users were
complaining in the forums recently. (And before, but recently got my
attention.)
So, please, do not hesitate to redefine option descriptions for your
ports if you feel you can add more information for the port specific
case.
Some of the entries in the KNOBS file could use better descriptions
also.
_______________________________________________
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"
