Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:44:46 +0800 From: "Rong-en Fan" <grafan@gmail.com> To: "Dominic Fandrey" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, d@delphij.net Subject: Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <6eb82e0712190244p51042783vf8fd1d52a297c90d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4767F263.2000708@gmx.de> References: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net> <20071218144900.M51742@FreeBSD.org> <4767F263.2000708@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 19, 2007 12:16 AM, Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
It can, see commit log
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ports-mgmt/portconf/pkg-install
Regards,
Rong-En Fan
> compact (and simple) syntax.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6eb82e0712190244p51042783vf8fd1d52a297c90d>