portupgrade ideas page

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Tue Jun 6 20:18:05 PDT 2006

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:39:50AM +0800, Jiawei Ye wrote:
> On 6/7/06, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> >> If all customizations are to be done in make.conf, what is the point
> >> of MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf?
> >
> >Flexibility, it's not supposed to be the primary means of customizing
> >your ports, that's make.conf's job.
> >
> >Kris
> Eh, not supposed to be? I have to admit that this idea of
> "correctness" is new to me.

It's "correct" in the sense of "this is the way it was designed to
work".  portupgrade relies on the INDEX for computing dependencies,
and the INDEX is a ports collection construct that uses ports
collection resources including make.conf.

> I have been using portupgrade since it
> came into the ports tree. One thing I like about the
> portupgrade/portmanager style of managing ports make_args is that they
> provide a very simple syntax for specifying per-port args.
> '<portname>'=>'arg1 arg2.....' (portupgrade style)
> <portname>|arg1 arg2 arg3| (portmanager style)
> Does make.conf provide such syntax? Last time I read from the ML, one
> needs the {curdir} magic boiler plate for that. It is hard on the eyes
> and reduces useful information on a 80x25 console IMHO.

The latter.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060607/d85c718a/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list