ports-mgmt/portconf , ports-mgmt/portmaster and make args

[marco]

On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 12:03:39PM -0800, you (Doug Barton) sent the following to [freebsd-ports] :
> On 01/01/2011 11:44, b. f. wrote:
> > On 1/1/11, Doug Barton<dougb at freebsd.org>  wrote:
> >> On 12/31/2010 18:40, b. f. wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't need to go to those lengths.  You could just add a
> >>> command-line switch, or a check for a cookie (.buildme or .nopkg, say)
> >>> in the corresponding PORT_DBDIR  subdirector(y|ies), or both, to allow
> >>> the user to indicate to portmaster that it should always build the
> >>> port(s) in question, even if -P is used.
> >>
> >> My preferences are for something that it's possible for other port tool
> >> authors to use, and something that requires the minimal necessary steps
> >> for the user. Since the OP is already editing knobs in ports.conf, and
> >> since IMO either ports.conf or make.conf are easier to transport between
> >> systems I think I'll give Matthew's idea a try first. :)

I'll be eagerly awaiting the implementation.

> >
> > Whatever works, as long as it is not specific to ports-mgmt/portconf,
> > because many users may not use that port and yet still want to avoid
> > the use of packages for certain ports.  Note that various Makefiles
> > (Makefile.{inc,local,${ARCH},${OPSYS}, and ${ARCH}-${OPSYS}}) can also
> > hold per-port defines that may have to be accounted for,
> 
> Right, which is another reason that doing 'make -V 
> PT_NO_INSTALL_PACKAGE' at the /usr/ports/category/portname level seems 
> like a good way to go.
> 
> > and that
> > NO_PACKAGE may preclude your use of 'make package' with -g in
> > portmaster (at least without some workaround like FORCE_PACKAGE).
> 
> Different issue, the OP was concerned about using packages to install 
> all of his ports _except_ for the ones where he had defined options in 
> ports.conf.

Correct.

-- 
Regards,
.marco.

Use UNIX or die.