In article <6e9741c60711072303v291196f7j7364465851bd36c8@mail.gmail.com> Blair wrote:
: And this is just a brainstorm:  but I have some sort of vague idea
: concerning a partial merge of functionaliy between the options
: framework and USE_FEATURES, e.g. for selecting direct vs. indirect
: rendering in mesa.

  USE_FEATURES, IIUC, lists Posix features used by the package which
might be missing on some operating systems.  It is something the
package maintainer determines.

  Options, on the other hand, let the user fine-tune how to build the
package.

  I don't see how the two would go together.

:  Another case could be something, e.g. consider
: ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386".  Then one could do:
: USE_FEATURES.${MACHINE_ARCH}=sse2, for instance.

  Unless I completely misunderstood USE_FEATURES, that is not what it
is for.

: In working on my mesa package, I found that the options framework is a
: bit cumbersome for handling all of the possible combinations of
: 09configurations/architectures.

  I don't think making an option for each graphic chip DRI driver is a
good idea.  Either split them into separate packages, or build all of
them.  They are neither big nor do they take long to build.

  If you have other/different difficulties with the options framework,
please let me know.

					yours,
					dillo