Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:48:59 -0430 From: Andres Perera <andres.perera@zoho.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster and environ from pkg_install tools (was: i keep *trying* to move from portupgrade to portmaster) Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ba0vs7YmWwH%2BX2p5UVh-BRSOty_8kS-1fBAWF@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C5C9C1B.5080804@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTinwe%2B_NBwLzHHuKbd0d=UeCSzPwjY_Tzhzry=kP@mail.gmail.com> <4C5C9C1B.5080804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 08/06/2010 16:01, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On 08/06/2010 15:03, Adam Vande More wrote: >>> >>>> While your in the mood for for taking portmaster suggestions, >>> >>> I am always in the mood for taking suggestions. :) >>> >> >> On that note, I suggest that portmaster should fallback on PKG_PATH, >> which is explained in pkg_add(1), if LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR isn't defined. > > It uses PACKAGES if LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR is not defined, which is a > throwback to the days before package installation support because it > uses that location for other things too. > The problem is that PM_PACKAGES_LOCAL requires LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR regardless. That inconsistency aside, PACKAGES definately makes more sense now. Andres
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=ba0vs7YmWwH%2BX2p5UVh-BRSOty_8kS-1fBAWF>