shells/bash: Options slightly confusing

[Freddie Cash]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:09:55 +0200
> Michael Gmelin articulated:
>
> > On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:08:29 +0200
> > John Marino <freebsdml at marino.st> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/30/2013 13:27, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > > > I assume there are better ways to make this clear. It might even
> > > > make sense to have a basic distinction on the ports system level -
> > > > options that provide additional features vs. options that
> > > > change the (default) behavior of the port.
> > >
> > > Isn't this implicit in the option default selection?  In other
> > > words, the fact that it's pre-selected indicates the default
> > > behavior of the port, right?
> > >
> > > Even in the case of a dialog showing where it didn't before isn't a
> > > logical reason to think pre-selected options are changes in default
> > > behavior, at least not to me.
> > >
> >
> > There's been some debate over the bash port earlier this year, plus it
> > has been converted to OptionsNg recently (AFAIK it had no options
> > dialog before), therefore my pessimism.
> >
> > But regardless of default options and updating - if I installed bash
> > for the first time and seen an option labeled as "Use directory name
> > alone to cd into it" I would assume that bash will behave like this
> > after installation without further configuration - in contrast to
> > adding the ability to do that ("Support feature").
> >
> > Maybe it's just me though :)
>
> I agree whole heartily. Unfortunately, all too many ports have
> options that all cryptic in nature. There really needs to be better
> documentation as to what the options actually do. Perhaps having an
> additional file in each port named "OPTDESC", or whatever that would
> list each available option for the port and exactly what it did would
> prove useful. It certainly would not be a burden as over 90% of the
> ports that have either none or just one or two options. Besides, if
> some maintainer created a port with 40 or 50 configurable options, then
> they certainly can take the time to fully document them.
>
> Isn't long options description support enabled in the ports tree now?  Or
was that only available via Warren Block's dialogwrapper?  Or maybe via
dialog4ports?

I remember reading something about this a few months back, where the bottom
of the screen would show long descriptions of what the option would do, or
a separate help screen would be available.  Or maybe that was just a
proof-of-concept?

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com