Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:34:39 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Manually registering dependencies for ports Message-ID: <20100607173439.7e9484d7@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0CA591.20307@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4C0C34FC.4030603@gibfest.dk> <4C0C3A5B.8010707@missouri.edu> <4C0C3D5F.2070204@FreeBSD.org> <4C0C403B.4000005@missouri.edu> <4C0C4306.205@FreeBSD.org> <4C0C43A3.6050100@missouri.edu> <4C0C4709.5000504@missouri.edu> <4C0CA591.20307@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:53:53 +0100 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/06/2010 02:10:33, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > So --- this is what I would do. If I had a set of scripts that I > > wanted to install, I would write my own local port whose job is to > > install the scripts, and which lists the needed dependencies as > > RUN_DEPENDS. > > So, you're creating your own meta-port that exists only to be depended > on by the ports you specifically want to have installed? That's a > really good idea. You might need to fill out the contents of your > "wanted-ports" meta-port a bit more, but the concept seems sound to > me. > > It shouldn't cause horrendous problems with most package tools -- they > all cope with things like bsdpan- ports already, which don't have any > directory in the ports tree. If it's a metaport then it does have an origin.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100607173439.7e9484d7>