From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 8 04:49:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5868D1065672 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 04:49:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E798FC0C for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 04:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3174 invoked by uid 399); 8 Aug 2010 04:49:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 8 Aug 2010 04:49:02 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4C5E373D.5060108@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:49:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100807 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 849372@gmail.com References: <4C5C9C1B.5080804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Andres Perera Subject: Re: portmaster and environ from pkg_install tools X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 04:49:04 -0000 On 08/07/2010 21:18, Andres Perera wrote: > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 08/06/2010 16:01, Andres Perera wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>>> On 08/06/2010 15:03, Adam Vande More wrote: >>>> >>>>> While your in the mood for for taking portmaster suggestions, >>>> >>>> I am always in the mood for taking suggestions. :) >>>> >>> >>> On that note, I suggest that portmaster should fallback on PKG_PATH, >>> which is explained in pkg_add(1), if LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR isn't defined. >> >> It uses PACKAGES if LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR is not defined, which is a >> throwback to the days before package installation support because it >> uses that location for other things too. >> > > The problem is that PM_PACKAGES_LOCAL requires LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR regardless. Right, that was by design. My theory at the time was that installing from a local package repository was going to be sufficiently unusual that needing to take the extra step of either using --local-packagedir on the command line, or configuring it in an rc file seemed reasonable. > That inconsistency aside, PACKAGES definately makes more sense now. Now I think I understand your question better. Yours is the first question about this, but I've made a note about the issue in case it comes up again. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso