Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:08:48 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "K.J.Koster" <kjk1@ukc.ac.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <questions@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Suggestion for ports... Message-ID: <19970912090848.35102@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970911205849.22246B-100000@kestrel.ukc.ac.uk>; from K.J.Koster on Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 09:06:16PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970911205849.22246B-100000@kestrel.ukc.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 09:06:16PM +0100, K.J.Koster wrote: > Dear All, > > I just did my first installation from the `ports' (yes, a british ispell), > and it was too easy. I had gone through all the trouble to download > ispell, and make completely ignored me and took it straight from the cdrom > (how rude :) That'll teach you :-) In fact, you never need to download. Make will do it for you if its needed. > In one word: Wow! It's impressive, isn't it? > I do have a small suggestion (I haven't tried this, so it may already > exist). I noticed that make uses a `work' directory to compile in. How > about making it so that if make finds the file system read-only and is > unable to create a work directory, it defaults to (for example) > `/tmp/<portname>.work'. That way, the casual ports user can do > > <place live filesys in cdrom drive> > mount /cdrom > cd /cdrom/ports/textproc/ispell > make british install > ... > cd > umount /cdrom > > No need to place a rather chunky ports distribution on your system. Does > the ports collection already do this? Not to my knowledge. I'm copying FreeBSD-ports on this for other opinions, but personally I don't think that's too important. When you're done, you can always do a 'make clean' to get rid of the stuff you don't need. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970912090848.35102>