Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:06:52 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade question Message-ID: <20070815190652.29880f43@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <18114.59908.527755.64532@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <46C20CB8.3010706@cam.ac.uk> <200708142245.l7EMjQ8o027148@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu> <20070815083210.M54184@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <200708150810.l7F8AJEv032092@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu> <18114.59908.527755.64532@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:56:52 -0400 Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote: > > 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. > Not if you define them conditionally as Roland suggested - portsconf is equivalent to this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070815190652.29880f43>