configuring ports via Makefile.local
q at uni.de
Fri Jul 30 12:40:57 PDT 2004
On Fri, 30.07.2004 at 21:12:58 +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > 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
> It's funny how people always critisize OPTIONS for just the wrong reasons.
> Installing a new system or running a massive portinstall is no problem - just
> set BATCH and you'll be fine. And if you already know what OPTIONS you want,
> additionally set them in make.conf as usual and you'll be fine, too.
You got that one on the wrong side. I'm not talking about the
interactive configuration. That can be avoided by BATCH. But since you
would have to put the options in make.conf anyway to make them work with
portinstall, what's the point of OPTIONS then?
Anyway, they don't cause me pain. And I hope it stays the same for
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
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20040730/9548afee/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports