Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:14:27 +0100 From: Robert bobb Crosbie <bobb+freebsd-arch@redbrick.dcu.ie> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020712121427.GD3678@lummux.tchpc.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <p05111701b953f38542f8@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20020706220511.GA88651@scoobysnax.jaded.net> <3D27A296.D58FB4B4@softweyr.com> <p05111745b94e9452f3b3@[128.113.24.47]> <p05111700b953ed16c118@[128.113.24.47]> <p05111701b953f38542f8@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn hath declared on Thursday the 11 day of July 2002 :-: > > cd /usr/ports/*/portAA > > make > > -> make sees it needs to make portBB > > -> it does a cd /usr/ports/*/portBB > > -> and does a 'make' there, but it still has a whatever > > make variables had been set for portAA, which you might > > *not* want to have set when making portBB. > because I did want those settings when making portAA, but I > wasn't expecting portBB to be built with the same settings. This reminds me, for ports it would be rather handy if each installed port could save the make options that you passed to when it was built so then when you build it again it can recall and use those options. Example: I built apache2 with ``WITH_SUEXEC=yes'', then after the chunking thing I did a ``portupgrade apache'', apache no longer works, scratched head for a while until I rememberd how I buile it origionally. Of course configurable as some people wouldn't always want the same options when they rebuilt ports, and I'm sure it would also cause a number of problems. - bobb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020712121427.GD3678>