Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:22:03 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating Ports Message-ID: <18200.44923.816309.975738@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <20071019125806.31a8b424@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <471773D8.80503@mtmary.edu> <18199.32078.807531.40747@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <471786EC.3040803@mtmary.edu> <18199.57951.791968.841899@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20071019125806.31a8b424@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW writes:
> > 3) It is possible to put port-related settings in
> > /etc/make.conf. I discourage this, as that file gets used for
> > /every/ make session and I consider it asking for trouble to clutter
> > it with items that may accidentally overlap with another port. (The
> > risk is very small ... but it's still not the right tool for the
> > job.)
>
> People tend argue that the other way around, that putting port build
> settings in a configuration file that's specific to a single tool is
> wrong.
And I agree in part. On the other hand, how many use multiple
configuration tools?
If there were something that applied to _every_ port - say a
compiler flag - I'd probably be OK with putting it in make.conf.
> You don't have to set anything globally in make.conf, you can do it
> like this:
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/net-mgmt/net-snmp}
> WITH_TKMIB=yes
> .endif
That looks good.
> and that can be simplified by using portconf, which puts a single
> line in make.conf and reads in the settings from its own
> configuration file.
This as well, though I see it as reducing (in practice) to my
solution.
Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18200.44923.816309.975738>