Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:36:32 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, arch@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports.conf Message-ID: <3B8CFDF0.E716421F@FreeBSD.org> References: <20010828221018.A31427@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d> <3B8CDC38.EC1EE32C@FreeBSD.org> <20010829165544.C780@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:12:40PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Alexander Langer wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks!
> > >
> > > You probably followed the arch-mailinglist.
> > >
> > > I want to move all ports-related bits into a ports-specific ports.conf.
> > >
> > > Now I need your help:
> > > - Location of ports.conf?
> > > $PORTSDIR/ports.conf ?
> > > $PORTSDIR/defaults/ports.conf ? (my favourite)
> > > $PORTSDIR/Mk/ports.conf ?
> > >
> > > I've also created this patch.
> >
> > Ok, now I've read the thread and can give my comments on the topic. To me
> > it seems that ports.conf file isn't really necessary, because it would be
> > just another file that gets unconditionally included from the bsd.ports.mk,
> > perhaps we could just merge content of hypotetic ports.conf with
> > bsd.ports.mk instead. This would solve "where to put it" and "at which
> > point to include it" problems. Comments?
>
> Errr.. I believe that the whole point of ports.conf is that it is
> a place for user-specified settings. bsd.port.mk gets unconditionally
> overwritten at each CVSup run (and not everyone is using checked-out
> CVS trees); ports.conf does not. The situation is similar to
> /etc/defaults/rc.conf and /etc/rc.conf.
Err, as I already clarified I meant *defaults* could be placed into bsd.ports.mk. The whole my
point is that I do not see any reason for a separate ${PORTSDIR}/ports.conf (or ports.conf in
any other dir in ${PORTSDIR}), which gets unconditionally included into bsd.port.mk. For the
record, I do not see any reason for separating user-configurable /etc/ports.conf from
/etc/make.conf too, but I do not care either, because I could simply ignore it and continue
using /etc/make.conf just like I was doing during the last several years.
IMO, proposed change and whole thread in spite of 4.4 release helps nothing and only drives
developers' attention from the real problems ("how many bento errors have you fixed today?").
Am I alone feeling like this?
-Maxim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B8CFDF0.E716421F>