Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:34:02 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: freebsd@dreamchaser.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: automating menu options in ports (and other ports build questions) Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK2Rwvg_G8veqh9bwV_KZPx6Tz4pxWr0cVh8ZbPEBg5=pg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120525035108.a3af81c1.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <4FBBF32D.9070505@dreamchaser.org> <20120522234510.a406941d.goksin.akdeniz@gmail.com> <4FBD7BA0.7070502@dreamchaser.org> <4FBEE05A.6000909@dreamchaser.org> <20120525035108.a3af81c1.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:28:58 -0600, Gary Aitken wrote: > > 3. Do the package builds use the defaults set in the ports tree? If > > not, how are the options for packages chosen, and how does one determine > > what the package options are? > > They use the default options. This is true for most ports at least, but perhaps not true for all of them. For example the QT4_OPTIONS controls some rather critical functionality which is compiled into the packages however doesn't end up in a default port install without other modification in make.conf. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were a few port config screens that didn't match a package's selected options. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK2Rwvg_G8veqh9bwV_KZPx6Tz4pxWr0cVh8ZbPEBg5=pg>