Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:55:04 +0200 From: hw <hw@adminart.net> To: George Hartzell <hartzell@alerce.com> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What does it mean to use ports? Message-ID: <878sspznlj.fsf@toy.adminart.net> In-Reply-To: <20190722172344.GA4628@c720-r342378> (Matthias Apitz's message of "Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:23:44 %2B0200") References: <87o91wqjl5.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <23851.63340.445828.46420@alice.local> <87sgr7joq7.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190716003705.eaa7db5f.freebsd@edvax.de> <8736j6iw12.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <23860.43628.637748.236257@alice.local> <20190721183239.GA3996@c720-r342378> <875znu603b.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190722172344.GA4628@c720-r342378>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de> writes: > El d=C3=ADa lunes, julio 22, 2019 a las 08:43:20a. m. +0200, hw escribi= =C3=B3: > >> > I compile my own set of the ports I'm used to use with poudriere(8). >> > Based on a list of some 400 ports the result is some 2000 packages rea= dy >> > to install. Very seldom, I tweak the options of some port (for example >> > to add features to mail/mutt, or to add features to x11/xterm) and the= re are >> > never conflicts among of the options. >>=20 >> Hm, is there something in place that prevents messing up things through >> options, or is everything ok because you almost never change them? > > As I said, I have for the followin 19 ports (of ~2000) defined special > options, mostly to add a feature which is/was not default, for example > for enable file logging for x11/xterm): It seems more likely that disabling things could cause problems that enabling them ... > [...]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?878sspznlj.fsf>