From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 29 04:02:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6571065673 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C5E8FC1B for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2T42Dub047950; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:02:13 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q2T42DjP047947; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:02:13 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:02:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: icemac In-Reply-To: <4F734BD7.8090607@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <4F731B60.7020207@gmail.com> <4F7322E8.1040502@gmail.com> <4F7341E1.8010407@FreeBSD.org> <4F734BD7.8090607@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:02:13 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: need info builing ports properly X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:02:14 -0000 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, icemac wrote: > I wasn't after fiddling or optimizing much and just want to to build ports i > need and have them as reliable and stable as possibile, but i misunderstood > the function of that setting in make.conf. > > I actually had thought that that was required and in turn assumed, ( in > retrospect) , that the defaults would be more aggressive and that that > setting would restrict any wild optimization. > > also didnt realize it was an override to all. > > thanks. > > p.s. So this was probably the reason for my flakey setups? Possible but unlikely.