Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
On Dec 20, 2007 1:29 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rong-en Fan wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 12:16 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
> >>>
> 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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
> >>> /etc/make.conf with constructs like
> >>>
> >>> .if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
> >>> WITH_GTK2=yes
> >>> .endif
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >> Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is
> >> a
> >> symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more
> >
> > It can, see commit log
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ports-mgmt/portconf/pkg-install
>
> Why doesn't it do something like
>
> PORTSDIR!=cd /usr/ports && pwd -P || exit 0
>
> to avoid having to hard-code it during install?
I'm not sure if I get the point. Do you mean that why don't I
make PORTSDIR in make.conf run-time determined instead of
hardcode during installation? If so, it's not possible because
our make limitation: you can not use variable in substitution.
Regards,
Rong-En Fan
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
Rong-en Fan wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 12:16 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
>>>
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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
>>> /etc/make.conf with constructs like
>>>
>>> .if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
>>> WITH_GTK2=yes
>>> .endif
>>>
>>> ?
>> Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is a
>> symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more
>
> It can, see commit log
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ports-mgmt/portconf/pkg-install
Why doesn't it do something like
PORTSDIR!=cd /usr/ports && pwd -P || exit 0
to avoid having to hard-code it during install?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
On Dec 19, 2007 12:16 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
> >
> >> 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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
> > /etc/make.conf with constructs like
> >
> > .if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
> > WITH_GTK2=yes
> > .endif
> >
> > ?
>
> Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is a
> symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more
It can, see commit log
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ports-mgmt/portconf/pkg-install
Regards,
Rong-En Fan
> compact (and simple) syntax.
>
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
>
>> 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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
> /etc/make.conf with constructs like
>
> .if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
> WITH_GTK2=yes
> .endif
>
> ?
Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is a
symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more
compact (and simple) syntax.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
/etc/make.conf with constructs like
.if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
WITH_GTK2=yes
.endif
I find it simpler to use:
editors/vim: WITH_GTK2
or for all vim ports:
editors/vim*: WITH_GTK2
Multiple ports on one line:
multimedia/mencoder multimedia/mplayer: WITH_NVIDIA
Defaults for all ports
*: BATCH|\
SRC_BASE=/usr/FreeBSD/RELENG_7/src |\
SYSDIR=/usr/FreeBSD/RELENG_7/src/sys |\
WITH_NVIDIA_GL
Sean
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
> 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 haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
/etc/make.conf with constructs like
.if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
WITH_GTK2=yes
.endif
?
--
Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
On Dec 18, 2007 1:54 AM, Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
Xin LI 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... > > Cheers, It's like with portmanager, just not everyone's tool of choice. Seeing that I have my own system for this stuff in the ports tree, I wouldn't use it if it were part of the base system. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?
-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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
