Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:18:11 +0100 From: Christopher Key <cjk32@cam.ac.uk> To: Nikola Lecic <nlecic@EUnet.yu> Cc: Rakhesh Sasidharan <rakhesh@rakhesh.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade question Message-ID: <46C2EF03.4040102@cam.ac.uk> 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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Nikola Lecic wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:36:53 +0400 (GST)
> Rakhesh Sasidharan <rakhesh@rakhesh.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Nikola Lecic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, options are not saved that way and Vim's default is with X11.
>>> Please make sure that the following lines exist in
>>> your /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf:
>>>
>>> MAKE_ARGS = {
>>> 'editors/vim' => 'NO_GUI=yes',
>>> [... options for other ports ...]
>>> }
>>>
>>> Next time portupgrade will honour it (without -P/-PP options, of
>>> course).
>>>
>> As far as I know, portupgrade won't honour this setting vim is
>> upgraded as a dependency of some other port. (Please correct me if
>> I'm wrong. I haven't tried this; its just something I read).
>>
>
> At least with portupgrade-devel, that doesn't seem true. I read it
> too, and the source was an unofficial blog. For example, I have:
>
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> [...]
> 'print/apsfilter' => 'PAPERSIZE=a4',
> 'print/ghostscript-gpl' => 'A4=yes',
> [...]
> }
>
> ghostscript-gpl is a dependency of apsfilter. Now, ghostscript-gpl
> needed update. I removed apsfilter for this testing purpose and:
>
> # portupgrade -NR apsfilter
> [...]
> ---> Installing 'apsfilter-7.2.8_3' from a port (print/apsfilter)
> ---> Building '/usr/ports/print/apsfilter' with make flags: PAPERSIZE=a4
> [...]
> ---> Upgrading 'ghostscript-gpl-8.57' to 'ghostscript-gpl-8.57_1'
> (print/ghostscript-gpl)
> ---> Building '/usr/ports/print/ghostscript-gpl' with make flags: A4=yes A4=yes
>
>
>> So the /etc/make.conf option is better.
>>
>
> It is definitively the most universal and IMHO it should appear in the
> Handbook.
>
> I just like to keep all ports/packages upgrading options at the same
> place (USE_PKGS, MAKE_ARGS, USE_PKGS_ONLY...).
>
> BTW, as far as I can recollect, as a global-honouring tool for ports
> configuration, the most frequently quoted one along these lists was
> ports-mgmt/portconf.
>
> Nikola Lečić
>
Thanks Nikola, Roland, Rakhesh,
I've gone for a portconf based solution for now, although, when I get
the chance, I'll try to test how portupgrade behaves wrt dependencies.
I would prefer to use pkgtools.conf for several reasons:
1) It keeps all the ports related configuration together
2) MAKE_ARGS get echoed when things are being built, whereas arguments
in make.conf don't seem to
3) If I run 'make install clean', I'd rather it built things as default,
rather than just being an alternative to 'portupgrade -N'
Regards,
Chris
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46C2EF03.4040102>