configuring ports via Makefile.local

George Hartzell hartzell at
Fri Jul 30 19:45:07 PDT 2004

Ulrich Spoerlein writes:
 > 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.

I'd like to voice support for Makefile.local, I *like* that fact that
my configuration information is right there in the same place as the
port, no matter what machine may be mounting the ports tree.

It's always an Astonishing moment when I realize that something didn't
build the way it did the last time, just because I'm on a different

My biggest complaint with it is that porters don't seem to
support/test it very well, most of the bugs/patches I've been able to
contribute have involved making it work in the ports that I care


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list