Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:19:27 +0800 From: "Jiawei Ye" <leafy7382@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Sergey Matveychuk <sem@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade ideas page Message-ID: <c21e92e20606061919g6cf0bb6ct101c47be3af19dd5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060607021330.GA11189@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <4485DBF5.3070705@FreeBSD.org> <20060606211113.GA7845@xor.obsecurity.org> <c21e92e20606061845g65e840eh1d64553d119e1b30@mail.gmail.com> <20060607021330.GA11189@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/7/06, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote:
> If you use fetchindex, this is expected. If you build the index
> yourself, but have your customizations in pkgtools.conf, it is also
> expected. This is why you should use make.conf for your
> customizations.
>
> Kris
Hi Kris,
I *know* that there are limitations in the base tools or what to
expect. sysutil/portmanager can do this well enough (correct
dependancy), that's why I *wish* portupgrade could do this too. It's a
wishlist right?
If all customizations are to be done in make.conf, what is the point
of MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf? I merely beg to complete the circle,
not to point fingers at anyone.
Have a nice day,
Jiawei
--
"Without the userland, the kernel is useless."
--inspired by The Tao of Programming
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c21e92e20606061919g6cf0bb6ct101c47be3af19dd5>