Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:56:52 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade question Message-ID: <18114.59908.527755.64532@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <200708150810.l7F8AJEv032092@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu> References: <46C20CB8.3010706@cam.ac.uk> <200708142245.l7EMjQ8o027148@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu> <20070815083210.M54184@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <200708150810.l7F8AJEv032092@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikola Lecic wrote: >> So the /etc/make.conf option is better. > > It is definitively the most universal and IMHO it should appear > in the Handbook. I try to avoid setting things in make.conf that do not need to be set there. Why? Because - as far as I know - they will apply to _everything_ that uses the standard "make" infrastructure. That includes today's port, where WITH_MUMBLEFROTZ is essential. It also includes the equally critical port you're trying to install in nine months, long after you forgot you put WITH_MUMBLEFROTZ in make.conf, and whose resultant misbehavior will be difficult to diagnose. (Misspell something, and you might even affect compiling the OS. No thanks.) I use portupgrade and pkgtools.conf. Perhaps not the fastest, but generally reliable and has few unintended consequences. Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18114.59908.527755.64532>