From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 10 18:51:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A57E106566B for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89D38FC0C for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1M3E7P-0003xW-9O for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:23 +0000 Received: from static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl ([78.8.147.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:23 +0000 Received: from mwisnicki+freebsd by static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:23 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Marcin Wisnicki Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <4ad871310905101008n73d26145h3d81914925aab965@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static-78-8-147-77.ssp.dialog.net.pl User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) Sender: news Subject: Re: [RFC] NO_INSTALL in meta-ports considered harmful 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, 10 May 2009 18:51:25 -0000 On Sun, 10 May 2009 13:08:56 -0400, Glen Barber wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the 'right answer', but NO_INSTALL allows the > proper installation of numerous ports from one location (the meta-port). > An example of this is the misc/instant-server port (though > unmaintained, IIRC). > > If you remove the NO_INSTALL line from the Makefile, 'make' thinks > misc/instant-server should be installed, rather than the collection of > ports it is intended to install. They will be installed since they are run dependencies. > > Again, this is my interpretation of it. If I'm wrong, I gladly accept > corrections to my thinking. :)