From owner-freebsd-ports Tue May 5 16:07:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04498 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 16:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from localhost.my.domain (ppp1665.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.249.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA04487 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 16:07:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA01275; Tue, 5 May 1998 18:58:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.my.domain: tim owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 18:58:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: tim@localhost Reply-To: ac199@hwcn.org To: Chuck Robey cc: Studded , FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How-to question for port with no makefile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 5 May 1998, Chuck Robey wrote: > Take a look at the x11 font stuff for the copying ... for the small > binary, define NO_BUILD, and really build it in pre-build, which is a > target you write completely in the ports makefile. What is the advantage of this over simply just redefining do-build? -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message