From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 00:14:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F353C37B401 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 00:14:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from CRWdog.demon.co.uk (12-228-200-39.client.attbi.com [12.228.200.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5B443FA3 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 00:14:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from spadger@best.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by CRWdog.demon.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AB4E2; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 00:14:19 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Roger Merritt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:57:53 +0700." <5.2.0.9.0.20030402135505.00a10ec0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:14:19 -0800 From: Andy Sparrow Message-Id: <20030402081419.54AB4E2@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting make options permanently (WITHOUT_GNOME, etc) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:14:56 -0000 > Interesting. What happens when you upgrade? It isn't affected. > I don't think Mergemaster looks > at anything but /etc. Does the Makefile.local file ever get overwritten? No, not that I've noticed. > Or > when cvsupping? Again, no. There's no Makefile.local in CVS, so it doesn't touch it in any way because it considers it a local file. As it should. > I confess I'm not that happy with using pkgtools.conf. Heh. Then you have an option :) And I agree. Loading 100's of port-specific options into a file that's specific to 'portupgrade' isn't the Right Way (TM) IMHO. And should this file ever change (e.g. format) as a result of a change to 'portupgrade' itself, you've got a potential migration problem. Not to mention that the string quoting and format in this file is often unnecessarily convoluted. I often want to build a port manually (e.g. outside portupgrade), tweaking configure and other options. So long as you initiate the make from the port's top-level, you'll pick up all your "regular" options without having to hunt them down. Actually set out one evening to frob exactly this functionality (the Makefile.local mechanism) into the port makefile system (mostly because I like to upgrade my ports in batch mode, unattended), but discovered quite quickly whilst reading them that it had been there all along, just not advertised/documented (or, for that matter, ever mentioned on the mailing lists, AFAICS). Dunno why. For some bizarre and inexplicable (at least to me) reason, everyone who bikesheds around Yet Another Way to provide persistant build options to ports completely ignores this extremely convenient, pre-existing and perfectly functional mechanism. If I want to use BS dialogs[0] to configure things, I'll install Linux or Slowaris, thanks very much. I *like* setting stuff once in text files, and I *like* unattended, automatic, recursive-with-my-local-option s ports upgrades[1] after my cvsup/build/installworlds. Apparently, I am alone in this. It's even more puzzling, because I don't ever see it as mutally exclusive at all. But that's life. My systems work the way I want them to, YMMV. Regards, AS [0] On which topic, the mplayer-skins port has been prompting twice via dialog for the skins to install for almost a year now, and other people have asked about it on this list, so I know I'm not imagining it :) [1] And no, just setting 'BATCH=yes' doesn't cut it - then it just skips the ports that need configuration options, like Ghostscript, Postfix, SNMP etc. etc.