ports-mgmt/portconf , ports-mgmt/portmaster and make args

Doug Barton dougb at FreeBSD.org
Sat Jan 1 20:03:42 UTC 2011


On 01/01/2011 11:44, b. f. wrote:
> On 1/1/11, Doug Barton<dougb at freebsd.org>  wrote:
>> On 12/31/2010 18:40, b. f. wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need to go to those lengths.  You could just add a
>>> command-line switch, or a check for a cookie (.buildme or .nopkg, say)
>>> in the corresponding PORT_DBDIR  subdirector(y|ies), or both, to allow
>>> the user to indicate to portmaster that it should always build the
>>> port(s) in question, even if -P is used.
>>
>> My preferences are for something that it's possible for other port tool
>> authors to use, and something that requires the minimal necessary steps
>> for the user. Since the OP is already editing knobs in ports.conf, and
>> since IMO either ports.conf or make.conf are easier to transport between
>> systems I think I'll give Matthew's idea a try first. :)
>
> Whatever works, as long as it is not specific to ports-mgmt/portconf,
> because many users may not use that port and yet still want to avoid
> the use of packages for certain ports.  Note that various Makefiles
> (Makefile.{inc,local,${ARCH},${OPSYS}, and ${ARCH}-${OPSYS}}) can also
> hold per-port defines that may have to be accounted for,

Right, which is another reason that doing 'make -V 
PT_NO_INSTALL_PACKAGE' at the /usr/ports/category/portname level seems 
like a good way to go.

> and that
> NO_PACKAGE may preclude your use of 'make package' with -g in
> portmaster (at least without some workaround like FORCE_PACKAGE).

Different issue, the OP was concerned about using packages to install 
all of his ports _except_ for the ones where he had defined options in 
ports.conf.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list