Ports installation, knobs, etc (Was: Ports conflicts:
lev at FreeBSD.org
Sun Oct 12 01:56:33 PDT 2003
Sunday, October 12, 2003, 2:53:52 AM, you wrote:
AL> On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 02:04 US/Pacific, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>> I don't think, it is good idea to "CONFLICTS=" all these binutils &
>> gcc. May be, we need some "general" patch (like libtool's one) to
>> disable installation of this library? Something like
>> In port makefile?
AL> No. Please no. Oh lordy, no. The maze of options, variables, hacks,
AL> and other bits and pieces needs to be reduced, not increased. It's a
AL> staggeringly complex ball of wax already.
It is good point.
And here are many unique-for-port knobs... and not all maintainers
make `pre=everything:' target to describe all these knobs...
It seems, that we need some mechanism to describe such knobs
automatically, like autoconf's AC_ARG_WITH or something like this.
And my sweet dream: install ports to /var/... with port's
(distfile's) `[g]make install' target, and then copy files to real
prefix according to pkg-plist. It could solve MANY problems:
automatic conflicts warning, easy skipping of unneeded files, etc...
95% of ports allows such trick without many additional work: all
autroconf's and Makefile.PL ports supports installation outside of
configured prefix (gmake/make INSTALL_PREFIX=... install or
something like this), and many other ports with good makefiles
supports such operation too...
RedHat's RPM works in such way. But it have many other drawbacks,
More information about the freebsd-ports