Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:16:35 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, d@delphij.net Subject: Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <4767F263.2000708@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20071218144900.M51742@FreeBSD.org> References: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net> <20071218144900.M51742@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> 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
>
> ?
Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is a
symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more
compact (and simple) syntax.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4767F263.2000708>