From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 20:25:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2971065674 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:25:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pitney.brad@googlemail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD21B8FC13 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pitney.brad@googlemail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so566154wra.13 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.15.19 with SMTP id s19mr467082rvi.75.1205958328962; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.41.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3dd203290803191325v6fd105fdqebdd693ffcb634f2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:25:28 +0000 From: "Brad Pitney" To: "Kevin K" In-Reply-To: <000401c889f9$fab77c10$f0267430$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <867igo3cih.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <47C749CF.4010501@FreeBSD.org> <86eja7et3j.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <47E0249C.8030700@FreeBSD.org> <868x0ezh9u.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <20080319193243.GA30784@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <000401c889f9$fab77c10$f0267430$@com> Cc: Marko Lerota , Jeremy Chadwick , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid requirements X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:25:31 -0000 On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kevin K wrote: > > That said: I do understand what you're saying, and yes, I can see why > > you would want that. It does make sense, and it's reasonable. It's > > just hard to achieve. I don't think other mainstream OSes (e.g. Linux) > > offer this ability either, though. Am I wrong? > > Redhat's up2date/yum ? I'm not 100% certain though. > OpenBSD's pkg_add has an -i option that allows options, their binary packages are build with various options, also they recommend using their binary packages as opposed to building your own. Although with FreeBSD having over 18000 ports, I don't see it as viable given constraints. some people are just ungrateful for what they already have, even if they have options. Marko, there is nothing stopping you from building binary packages on another machine with the options YOU want, some ports might not remember what it is was you specified, well there are work arounds, just remember /etc/make.conf is just like a Makefile so you could do something like this: .if ${.CURDIR:M*/ports} .if ${.CURDIR:M*/apache22} WITH_APR_FROM_PORTS= WITH_MPM=worker WITH_PGSQL= WITH_STATIC_SUPPORT= WITH_SQLITE= WITH_KQUEUE_SUPPORT= WITH_THREADS= .endif .endif by the way, it's a suggestion, nothing more. But Works For Me (TM). I would love to see something like the way pkgsrc handles options in ports: PKG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS = ssl pam kerberos acl ads ldap lang-en-GB gssapi kqueue sasl sqlite apr1 apache22 PKG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS += -debug -mysql -ruby-build-ri-db PKG_OPTIONS.sudo = -kerberos > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Best regards, Brad