portmaster comments

J. Hellenthal jhell at DataIX.net
Mon Mar 14 09:08:37 UTC 2011

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>> I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
>> for more configurability):
>> 1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations.  In some
>> cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
>> prefer '0' to '10').  Would it be possible to add an option to control
>> the priority?
>> 2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup.  For
>> various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
>> so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run.  It would be
>> nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
>> option to disable it completely.
> Neither is likely to happen. :)  I may however remove 1, it didn't really 
> help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX for 
> development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty easy to do 
> with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is set to

This doesn't have any effect for,
/usr/ports/lang/python/Makefile:31:.if defined(USE_PORTMASTER)

Does it ?

It would be real nice if these things were somewhat in sync for their 
intended use.

Ill BCC python@ for the heads up on ``UPGRADE_TOOL'' I would prefer this 
personally over USE_ vars. But is this common among portupgrade and 
portmaster ? If not can something be done in tree to decipher it into what 
is supposed to be set to avoid confusion ?

> "portmaster." I have such a thing which I can send you if you really need me 
> to, but I'm not booted into FreeBSD right now so I don't have it close to 
> hand.



  J. Hellenthal

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list