Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:14:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: B Briggs <rcbdyndns@bellsouth.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, r.c.ladan@gmail.com Subject: Re: portmaster: make config-conditonal ? Message-ID: <44FDB06D.8000307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <44FC6EFC.2020208@bellsouth.net> References: <edhpr3$10se$1@FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw> <44FC6EFC.2020208@bellsouth.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
B Briggs wrote:
> Rene Ladan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> what about the idea of using 'make config-conditional' instead of 'make
>> config' in portmaster to configure ports? This way
>> /var/db/ports/*/options is respected.
>>
>> The downside is that you have to run 'make rmconfig' in order to
>> reconfigure the port options.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rene
>
> I second that emotion!
>
> or possibly use config-conditional in -u unattended mode, and config
> otherwise.
The problem with doing that is that there is (what I consider to be) a bug
in the OPTIONS framework where if you have an existing /var/db/ports/ file
for that port, but the Makefile introduces a new option, config-conditional
will not re-run config to allow you to twiddle the new option. I did
extensive testing with the various combinations of targets before settling
on the method I chose. Doing it the way I have is the only way to be
absolutely sure that you can set each option, even if new ones are added.
FWIW, I would really like to see the OPTIONS framework improved to handle
this, and other bugs; since I would like to be able to do what you guys
described here too. :)
hth,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44FDB06D.8000307>