Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default? Message-ID: <4767283D.70604@delphij.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHZyg8hcUczkLqiksRAp8HAKC4eFI+0W1h5uXmQMxNpmoXxLk5/ACfQa56 ooRIdsd0UZz3NoDTiV4iNsY= =lVUX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4767283D.70604>