From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jul 25 18:40:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA07677 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts10-line11.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.109]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA07671 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01404; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White X-Sender: dwhite@localhost Reply-To: Doug White To: Marco Molteni cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Apache and Ports Policies in General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Marco Molteni wrote: > The following happened to me with more than a port: > > What I like about ports is that they take care of many things you could > not know, eg a particular flag to pass to the compiler. > > What I don't like is that _they_ choose all the options in the > application Makefile. > > I'd like something like: > 1. make patch from freebsd Makefile > 2. let _me_ edit the patched application Makefile > 2. make install from freebsd Makefile Then do so: $ make patch [ builds until FreeBSD patches applied ] $ vi work/app/Makefile [ hack as appropriate ] $ make install [ picks up where it left off, building & installing ] Yeah, the pre-set options bit is sometimes a pain, but sometimes makes some installs go much faster since you don't have to figure out someone else's twisted options selection mechanism. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major Spam routed to /dev/null by Procmail | Death to Cyberpromo