Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:28:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Subject: Re: ports.conf Message-ID: <XFMail.010829142842.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3B8CFDF0.E716421F@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Aug-01 Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Err, as I already clarified I meant *defaults* could be placed into
> bsd.ports.mk.
This is developer friendly, but not user friendly. That is an obscure place to
find this information for a non-ports developer. Please keep users in mind.
> 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.
Because make.conf affects _EVERY_ instance of make that is run. This is a bug.
/etc/make.conf should only be used for stuff that people want to affect every
make command. (I.e., overriding things in sys.mk.) Other modules should use
their own configuration file (ports.conf, world.conf, etc.) This concept has
been discusssed for years on the mailing lists.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
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?XFMail.010829142842.jhb>