configuring ports via Makefile.local

Ulrich Spoerlein q at
Fri Jul 30 11:48:47 PDT 2004

On Fri, 30.07.2004 at 18:54:44 +0200, Radim Kolar wrote:
> Supporting Makefile.local is a good idea. It allows per-port
> configuration without using external tools like portupgrade and
> without making some obscure constructs in make.conf. It is easy to
> understand and port subsystem already handles it for last 5 years and
> there is a policy about not committing makefile.local into ports tree.
> There is no reason for throwing makefile.local away.

It only works with a R/W ports tree, and only if that ports tree is not
shared across several machines, as is the common case. Therefore these
options need to be host-specific. Putting them into the ports tree is a
bad idea IMHO. You loose all changes when doing 'rm -rf /usr/ports' for

> > To make it `supported' it has the be documented somewhere, which is
> > something I won't like to see.
> Do you want to see OPTIONS= as only method supported? Converting all
> ports into OPTIONS= is also solution of this problem.

Please NO! OPTIONS are very ugly, IMHO. Imagine installing a new system
and running a massive portinstall. The only real solutions IMHO are the
make.conf approach (which works in all cases), or the pkgtools.conf
approach (which horribly fails in the 'fresh install' case, but is
otherwise a good solution).

It looks like people are not aware of the possibilities with make.conf,
which led to all those half-working methods.

Ulrich Spoerlein
PGP Key ID: F0DB9F44				Get it while it's hot!
PGP Fingerprint: F1CE D062 0CA9 ADE3 349B  2FE8 980A C6B5 F0DB 9F44
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."	-- Benjamin Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list