Date: 15 Oct 2001 08:27:17 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Erik Sabowski <airyk@sdf.lonestar.org>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports vs. packages Message-ID: <o4elo4nctm.lo4@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011014173546.A1244@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0110150009110.7734-100000@sdf.lonestar.org> <20011014173546.A1244@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > If you want to enable optional settings in the port, you have no > choice. If you insist on adding local CFLAGS customizations, you have > no choice. Otherwise the only real benefit to using ports is the warm > fuzzy you get from having compiled the software on your own machine. I thought that another (small) benefit was that the programs would be compiled for your Athlon or Pentium or 486 instead of for a 386. Ports give that benefit without changing CFLAGS, right? IIRC, the only thing the beginners docs (handbook?) suggested for CFLAGS is "-O -pipe". To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?o4elo4nctm.lo4>