On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:15:31PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:34:51PM -0700, Zoltan Frombach wrote: > > >Yes. Wouldn't it be a nice feature for "portupgrade -P" to install the > > >port instead of the package if any non-defaults were defined in > > >pkgtools.conf? > > > > If you really want to add this to portupgrade, it should be optional, > > though. Because someone might have a broken compiler or something and just > > wants to install a binary package quickly. In that case it should be > > possible to force a binary package installation regardless of what's inside > > the pkgtools.conf file. Don't you agree? > > 'portupgrade -PP' can still be used for that. I believe that the attached patch will cause portupgrade to build a port when make options are specified either in pkgtools.conf or with the -m option, unless -PP/--use-packages-only is specified. I am by no means a Ruby expert, but this appears to do the correct thing for all the combinations of MAKE_ARGS, -m, -P and -PP I could come up with. Collin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:19 UTC