From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jul 14 15:04:26 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id PAA03150 for ports-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:04:26 -0700 Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA03140 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:04:15 -0700 Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA29276; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:04:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:04:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199507142204.PAA29276@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: cstruble@vt.edu CC: ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199507141830.OAA00672@quirk.com> (cstruble@vt.edu) Subject: Re: ports/616: make install target in ports ignores NO_PACKAGE From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk * Yes, but what if I don't want the information registered? Or for example, * I'm testing a port build and install without packaging information * available? The make complains and dies with an error. Earlier versions * of the bsd.port.mk files honored the NO_PACKAGE for installs. At least, * it did for pre-2.0.5 SNAPS (I distinctly remember doing this for a * few ports I grabbed off the FTP site because the package commands failed). That was considered a mistake. I didn't know there was somebody who liked the old behavior. ;) * Should there be a new variable? I don't think it's necessary, but at least * give me some way of telling the system I don't want package information * installed. Well, we can have variables for everything but for this particular one, I don't see the need to add yet another variable to the already congested bsd.port.mk. You can do "make -i install" if you are just testing, I think that's good enough. Remember, not having pkg/* files is not allowed for any port (NO_PACKAGE or not), so those ports are broken and have to be fixed. And for testing broken ports, we usually recommend "make -i". :) Satoshi