Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:49:42 +0100 From: "Pav Lucistnik" <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: d@delphij.net, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <20071218144900.M51742@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net> References: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
> I think that ports-mgmt/portconf (a.k.a. /usr/local/etc/ports.conf)
> is a very handy feature that makes it much easier to store port options
> across upgrade. Is there a reason behind not making it into
> bsd.ports.mk? IMHO it's a big deal to take the script into
> ports/Tools/scripts, and move the configuration to somewhere like
> /etc/ports.conf...
I haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
/etc/make.conf with constructs like
.if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
WITH_GTK2=yes
.endif
?
--
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071218144900.M51742>