ports.conf: Is there a reason behind not being default?

[Rong-en Fan]

On Dec 19, 2007 12:16 AM, Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze at gmx.de> wrote:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:05 -0800, Xin LI wrote
> >
> >> I think that ports-mgmt/portconf (a.k.a. /usr/local/etc/ports.conf)
> >>  is a very handy feature that makes it much easier to store port options
> >> across upgrade.  Is there a reason behind not making it into
> >> bsd.ports.mk?  IMHO it's a big deal to take the script into
> >> ports/Tools/scripts, and move the configuration to somewhere like
> >> /etc/ports.conf...
> >
> > I haven't checked it out yet. What can it do that can't be done in
> > /etc/make.conf with constructs like
> >
> > .if ${.CURDIR} == "/usr/ports/editors/vim"
> > WITH_GTK2=yes
> > .endif
> >
> > ?
>
> Actually it can only do less than that (and it won't work if /usr/ports is a
> symlink, at least the last time I checked). The only advantage is a more

It can, see commit log

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ports-mgmt/portconf/pkg-install

Regards,
Rong-En Fan

> compact (and simple) syntax.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>