Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:58:35 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, arch@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports.conf Message-ID: <3B8DF22B.135E063B@FreeBSD.org> References: <20010828221018.A31427@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d> <3B8CDC38.EC1EE32C@FreeBSD.org> <20010830005148.A7371@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:12:40PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You weren't paying attention where I mentioned that across my various
> FreeBSD machines, I need differing ports knobs settings. I share a
> single NFS /usr/ports across these machines. There *must* be some
> ports-related make config file in /etc.
Hell, you are the *third* person that asks me the same question (see below).
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ports.conf
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:36:32 +0300
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>
Organization: Vega International Capital
To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
CC: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <20010828221018.A31427@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d>
<3B8CDC38.EC1EE32C@FreeBSD.org> <20010829165544.C780@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
Peter Pentchev wrote:
>[...]
> 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?3B8DF22B.135E063B>