[Bug 231392] print/py-psautohint: Update to 1.9.1

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231392

--- Comment #24 from Ting-Wei Lan <lantw44 at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh from comment #23)
> Instead of -extras, I would prefer current naming which is clear enough. And
> what if other ports require different options?
When a new option is needed, it will be added to OPTIONS_SLAVE of
py-fonttools-extras. The use of -extras is used to avoid renaming and prevent
the name from being too long when more options are needed.

> But I don't like the combination of options. It would be more flexible if a
> port enables only one option.
I don't like controlling multiple options with single port, either. I already
proposed making one port for each option in attachment 205520, but you didn't
seem to review it. Therefore, I just assumed that you had rejected the idea and
I had to find a different solution. 

> Regarding the patch, it looks strange to me. Why not use OPTIONS_EXCLUDE
> rather than redefining OPTIONS_DEFINE?
There are 8 options in py-fonttools. In order to hide 'make config' dialog, I
have to exclude all options which are not enabled in the slave port, which is a
long list that have to be changed every time an option is added to
py-fonttools. Redefining OPTIONS_DEFINE means we can just ignore options we
don't need, which should be easier to read and maintain.

> What if we move the OPTIONS from Makefile to another file (e.g. options.mk).
> Let py-fonttools-foo include that file and add py-fonttools and
> foo_RUN_DEPENDS to RUN_DEPENDS. If a port requires fonttools[foo] and 
> fonttools[bar], you could add py-fonttools-foo and py-fonttools-bar to 
> RUN_DEPENDS.
That was what I proposed in attachment 205520. Although I called it
'Makefile.features' instead of 'options.mk', the idea is the same.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.