Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:12:58 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz> Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local Message-ID: <200407302113.02313.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20040730184715.GA768@galgenberg.net> References: <20040727122823.40c6c3c5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20040730165444.GA36115@sanatana.dharma> <20040730184715.GA768@galgenberg.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_+2pCBvW5CJMjBkX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 30 July 2004 20:47, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > Please NO! OPTIONS are very ugly, IMHO. Imagine installing a new system > and running a massive portinstall. The only real solutions IMHO are the > make.conf approach It's funny how people always critisize OPTIONS for just the wrong reasons.= =20 Installing a new system or running a massive portinstall is no problem - ju= st=20 set BATCH and you'll be fine. And if you already know what OPTIONS you want= ,=20 additionally set them in make.conf as usual and you'll be fine, too. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --Boundary-02=_+2pCBvW5CJMjBkX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBCp2+Xhc68WspdLARAoluAJ9Ij7g1meieLwUQbMFH+MjPFxvCAgCfT4iT dsCVxP7jd7brEDMb4Ix9PT0= =TE5s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_+2pCBvW5CJMjBkX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407302113.02313.michaelnottebrock>