Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:33:48 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: d@delphij.net Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <476769CC.30807@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net> References: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Xin LI wrote: > Hi, > > I think that ports-mgmt/portconf (a.k.a. /usr/local/etc/ports.conf) is a > very handy feature that makes it much easier to store port options > across upgrade. Is there a reason behind not making it into > bsd.ports.mk? IMHO it's a big deal to take the script into > ports/Tools/scripts, and move the configuration to somewhere like > /etc/ports.conf... > > Cheers, It's like with portmanager, just not everyone's tool of choice. Seeing that I have my own system for this stuff in the ports tree, I wouldn't use it if it were part of the base system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?476769CC.30807>