'buildworld' not always pulling in /etc/src.conf

Freddie Cash fjwcash at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 23:30:51 UTC 2010

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 06/04/10 11:39, Freddie Cash wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Doug Barton<dougb at freebsd.org>  wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be great, if /etc/make.conf disappeared completely?
> No, since it's useful for things that are common to both src and ports, and
> to stuff that is neither.

make.conf could be reserved for "normal", non-buildworld, non-ports-related
stuff, when one just runs make by itself (ie, a config file for make), for
one's own uses.

src.conf could be for stuff that only matters to
buildworld/kernel/universe/etc (just stuff under /usr/src).  IOW, a config
file for the source tree builds.

ports.conf could be for stuff that only matters to ports building (just
stuff under /usr/src).  IOW, a config file for the ports tree.

Seems silly to have a separate src.conf without a separate ports.conf, as
the requirements for them are very different.

I had a long, multi-page spec for this written up (gotta love insomnia), but
/etc/src.conf appeared while it was still in draft form, so I never
finished/submitted it.  Sounded like this was the direction things were
heading, so I never thought about it further.


portconf has horrible syntax, compared to make.conf/src.conf, at least last
I tried to use it (when it first came out).  And this is geared more toward
per-port configuration settings.  ports.conf would be for global settings
for the whole ports tree, stuff that affects multiple ports.  Things like
WITH{OUT}_X11, WITH{OUT}_GNOME, CPUTYPE, perl version info, selecting a
default python version, etc.

Of course, if it's grown those features (global ports settings), then this
whole discussion is moot, as one can just ignore make.conf, and use
src.conf/portconf config file.

Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list