On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Marcin Wisnicki <mwisnicki+free...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some metaports (like print/cups) use NO_INSTALL. > > This will prevent such port from registering its installation in /var/db/ > pkg, which is different behaviour from installing it from prebuilt > package (where it registers just fine). > > IMHO not registering installation makes no sense and serves only to > confuse users (I've installed cups yet pkg_info claims I didn't!) and > causes unnecessary differences between software installed from ports vs > pkgs, which may lead to other unexpected problems (like missing > RUN_DEPENDS). > > Thus I advocate for more uniform handling of ports and packages by > treating it as a bug and replacing any such use of NO_INSTALL with empty > do-install target. Maybe even add a note to Porter's Handbook (though I > see no reference to NO_INSTALL there). > > If anyone has some insightfull comments why NO_INSTALL is not evil then > I'm all ears. >
I'm not sure if this is the 'right answer', but NO_INSTALL allows the proper installation of numerous ports from one location (the meta-port). An example of this is the misc/instant-server port (though unmaintained, IIRC). If you remove the NO_INSTALL line from the Makefile, 'make' thinks misc/instant-server should be installed, rather than the collection of ports it is intended to install. Again, this is my interpretation of it. If I'm wrong, I gladly accept corrections to my thinking. :) -- Glen Barber _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"