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

Dominic Fandrey LoN_Kamikaze at gmx.de
Wed Dec 19 09:29:56 PST 2007

Rong-en Fan wrote:
> 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

Why doesn't it do something like

PORTSDIR!=cd /usr/ports && pwd -P || exit 0

to avoid having to hard-code it during install?

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list