Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:04:20 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: marco <marco+freebsd-ports@lordsith.net>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports-mgmt/portconf , ports-mgmt/portmaster and make args Message-ID: <4D1F7AB4.6030903@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D1F3F4A.5060708@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20101231091044.GA98464@lordsith.net> <4D1E8866.7050509@FreeBSD.org> <4D1F3F4A.5060708@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/01/2011 06:50, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 01/01/2011 01:50, Doug Barton wrote:
>> If someone can come up with a programmatic way of determining if such
>> settings exist in ports.conf I'd be willing to consider adding the
>> support, but given the wide variety of syntax that is supported I think
>> such a thing would be difficult.
>
> There's a NO_PACKAGE variable used to prevent the build cluster from
> generating packages, or at least, from uploading packages to the FTP
> servers. You could (ab)use this to mark packages you always want to
> install from source -- so, choosing apache22 as an example, you could
> put something like this in /etc/make.conf:
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/www/apache22}
> NO_PACKAGE= yes
> .endif
>
> or you could put NO_PACKAGE=yes into
> /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile.local or use portconf or various other
> ways.
>
> portmaster would then have to run something on the lines of:
>
> cd ${PORTSDIR}/www/apache22 ; make -V NO_PACKAGE
>
> to detect the setting.
I wouldn't want to use the same knob, but I think testing for
PT_NO_INSTALL_PACKAGE=true would be quite acceptable, and has the
benefit of also working without portconf. I suggest PT_ for "Ports Tool"
in case any of the other tool authors want to use the same convention.
The downside of this is that every make variable I test for adds
anywhere from 0.2 to 0.5 seconds per port that I have to test (which
relative to the other things that portmaster does per-port is an
eternity). However given that this would only apply when the port needs
updating, and only if one of the packages options is in use, I think the
cost is acceptable.
Marco, does this sound like it would meet your needs?
Matthew, another great idea, as always. :)
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1F7AB4.6030903>