Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:52:34 +0000 From: "Florent Thoumie" <flz@xbsd.org> To: d@delphij.net Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <a01628140712180152y38e787d8ge23e4b42d5c0191e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net> References: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 18, 2007 1:54 AM, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> 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... I'd rather have ports.conf being the equivalent of src.conf for ports and portconf configuration file being renamed. Whether it should be in base or not is another matter, IMHO it's a handy hack but a hack nonetheless :-) -- Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Committer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a01628140712180152y38e787d8ge23e4b42d5c0191e>