Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Even if there's only two things, the fact is that the package maintainer > wants not only to decide what is supported but he might also want to > enable some features... Did you think about having two fields, one to specify the set of supported options, and one to allow setting defaults? FWIW, Manoj, Steve, Yuri[1] and I had a good chat about this on the train across Scotland last summer. For some types of options, it makes sense to not just declare that they're supported, but that some particular combinations of options is supported, while declaring other combinations as unsupported. This would be particularly useful when setting compile options (including librarary link combinations). Hmm, my notebook[2] from that trip suggests the following syntax: Build-Options: strip, debug, bar, foo, !foo+bar Indicating that foo and bar cannot be combined. Also, I think it would be a good idea to explicitly make "x-foo" be reserved for non-standard options. -- see shy jo [1] A gentoo guy. Who better to discuss build options. ;-) [2] http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1121/639896787_dfe8d0f8c2.jpg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature