"universal" and "32-bit" are built into the new options code; we should consider standardizing a few more options.
Going through formulae, I notice that there are a lot of variations on "--with-docs": "--doc", "--docs", "--build-docs"; we should pick one.
The same thing goes for "--with-x" and friends.
Once standardized we need to support the old forms for formula that had them, rationale being, otherwise they won't upgrade with previous options.
This is true.
From the optional & feature work, I propose:
We can run option names through a canonicalization function when we read them from the tab.
Coming back to this, ideally we'd have a normalizer on the reading side so that we can transition things that are named differently to the optional/recommended dep syntax, and also to use the with?/without? methods on build and any future enhancement to that.
In addition to normalizing what we can safely, we might want to pick 0.9.6 (or something) to be a flag day for misnamed options.
Sorry for digging this out. We tend to favor with/without now, even for stuff like --with-doc as we have implemented some logic around that (for example depends_on 'foo' => 'with-bar' works also if foo has bar on and provides only a --without-bar option. We don't have this for enable/disable right now.
This will work as long as there is a formula named doc and then it really gets confusing.
depends_on 'foo' => 'with-bar'
Don't hit me, but actually I do like Macport's +bar and -bar syntax, because it's shorter than --with-bar, --without-bar or even --enable-bar,--disable-bar.