On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:35:00 +0100 Nikola Lečić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:49:05 +0100 > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In the past we've even talked about how to move all of pkg_* out of > > src and into ports, i.e. the opposite case. > > A propos (non-)removing pkg_* into the ports, what do you people think > of introducing bin-install ports make target (similar to what pkgsrc > has)? Besides, bin[-install]-fetch[-recursive] come to mind as well. > IMHO, this would have nice pedagogical and heuristic effect since it > could > > 1) resolve eternal users' confusion on what is the "difference between > ports and packages" and "between 'make install' and 'pkg_add'": it's > different if a package is actually installed by e,g. > cd /usr/ports/lang/python ; make [BIN_PKGSITES=...] bin-install > > 2) parallelise binary-install/compiling/local-package-building logics; > > 3) simplify things since it would cut proliferation of similar > command-line options and utilities/methods that do the same thing. > > Best regards. > - -- > Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић > fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B I like the 'make update' target as implemented in OpenBSD. Its then very convenient to update a port when binary update is not an option. my 2 cents, - Etienne _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
