From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 1 20:03:42 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2051065673 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 20:03:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC01F8FC08 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 20:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15596 invoked by uid 399); 1 Jan 2011 20:03:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 1 Jan 2011 20:03:40 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4D1F889B.6050500@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:03:39 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101212 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bf1783@gmail.com References: <4D1F7DEA.9020006@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "b. f." , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-mgmt/portconf , ports-mgmt/portmaster and make args X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:03:42 -0000 On 01/01/2011 11:44, b. f. wrote: > On 1/1/11, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 12/31/2010 18:40, b. f. wrote: >> >>> You don't need to go to those lengths. You could just add a >>> command-line switch, or a check for a cookie (.buildme or .nopkg, say) >>> in the corresponding PORT_DBDIR subdirector(y|ies), or both, to allow >>> the user to indicate to portmaster that it should always build the >>> port(s) in question, even if -P is used. >> >> My preferences are for something that it's possible for other port tool >> authors to use, and something that requires the minimal necessary steps >> for the user. Since the OP is already editing knobs in ports.conf, and >> since IMO either ports.conf or make.conf are easier to transport between >> systems I think I'll give Matthew's idea a try first. :) > > Whatever works, as long as it is not specific to ports-mgmt/portconf, > because many users may not use that port and yet still want to avoid > the use of packages for certain ports. Note that various Makefiles > (Makefile.{inc,local,${ARCH},${OPSYS}, and ${ARCH}-${OPSYS}}) can also > hold per-port defines that may have to be accounted for, Right, which is another reason that doing 'make -V PT_NO_INSTALL_PACKAGE' at the /usr/ports/category/portname level seems like a good way to go. > and that > NO_PACKAGE may preclude your use of 'make package' with -g in > portmaster (at least without some workaround like FORCE_PACKAGE). Different issue, the OP was concerned about using packages to install all of his ports _except_ for the ones where he had defined options in ports.conf. 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/