From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 17 15:24:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBC716A4DE for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:24:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mh983@yahoo.com) Received: from smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7777243D60 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:24:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mh983@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 25110 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2006 15:24:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=AnRhhlKAi7na7h2bs2UOsAUwqprCV5dn3P+nmt4yB0NBAfCtEUtLkgnXFc+vX149L/apjksI3YdS6k1/XYn0RO6hCjfQ3tPLvnrZjuQfwApEzcQxbs3jbOp/TOsVLfbuFUowtxp3Yq0sFnbr0J795aOveUDDpe/MpJ5jBvsoIkQ= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.254.100?) (mh983@69.208.162.156 with plain) by smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2006 15:24:30 -0000 Message-ID: <44BBABAD.90600@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:24:29 -0500 From: mike User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20060717135455.44183.qmail@web60618.mail.yahoo.com> <44BB9BA5.5050203@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <44BB9BA5.5050203@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: defining dependencies for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:24:41 -0000 Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > Owen G wrote: > >> You are aware that there exists >> 1. ports = source = must be compiled = "make install" (as above) >> 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = "pkgadd -r . . ." >> >> >> > Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... > >> So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports >> over packages. >> > ...this is not. > > Ports are useful : > > 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) > where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the > ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) > > 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time > to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little > > 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; > because another port or some other local software needs it) > > I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. > Perhaps you meant "unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag > in make.conf" but I don't think even that would make a difference. > > Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like > portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never > core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. > > If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or > pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* > compile-time options that other local machines can use. > > --Alex > > > > > > Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try "make config" but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if there are no OPTIONS defined? And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile? thanks again. I'm learning a lot in this process. mike