Ports gripe

leafy leafy at leafy.idv.tw
Thu May 6 02:10:26 PDT 2004

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:54:27AM -0700, Clint Olsen wrote:
> On May 06, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > 
> > Um, what "port interface"?
> Portupgrade and friends.
portupgrade is also a port by itself. Not strictly the 'port interface' 
> Thanks for the links.  It doesn't really cover the fundamental issues -
> explaining the relationship between a port, a package, when to use make or
> when it's better to use port{install,upgrade} etc.  I have seen messages
A package is just a pre-compiled port. It still adheres to the port 
> saying that portupgrade is preferred for a particular port over 'make
> install'.
portupgrade can specify port-specific make flags through 
${localbase}/etc/pkgtools.conf, you can read on that one. I do agree 
it's better than just 'make install' for many ports.
> In your original mail, you said I should have done "make all deinstall
> reinstall".  However, the first question that came out of my mind was, what
> exactly does the 'all' target do in this case, and are you referring to all
> the ports or just this one port in particular?
'all' applies to the particular port Makefile, with lots of different 
targets based on which .mk file it includes. Basically 
ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk lists the most common targets. They are also 
partially documented in the Porter's Handbook. 

"Without the userland, the kernel is useless."
               --inspired by The Tao of Programming

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list