configuring ports via Makefile.local

Ion-Mihai Tetcu itetcu at
Fri Jul 30 13:08:58 PDT 2004

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:47:15 +0200
Ulrich Spoerlein <q at> wrote:

> 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 example.
> > > 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.

 setenv BATCH=YES 
for this case works.

> 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.

OPTIONS are a very good thing, IMO. The lack some features, but are easy
to use, esp. for newbies. Looking_at_and_understanding a Makefile
takes time. After doing a few ports I can say I understand about 75% of
what _does_and_how_ , but for example is
uncharted land for me.

Plus OPTIONS (seems to want to) provide some sort of versioning..
Recently andreas@ pointed me that wanting to change the meaning of
WITHUOT_SOMETING would at least confuse users. This versioning should
somehow warn users about this kind of problems.

Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list