On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Doug Barton <dougb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On 06/04/10 11:39, Freddie Cash wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Doug Barton<dougb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> Wouldn't it be great, if /etc/make.conf disappeared completely? >> > > No, since it's useful for things that are common to both src and ports, and > to stuff that is neither. make.conf could be reserved for "normal", non-buildworld, non-ports-related stuff, when one just runs make by itself (ie, a config file for make), for one's own uses. src.conf could be for stuff that only matters to buildworld/kernel/universe/etc (just stuff under /usr/src). IOW, a config file for the source tree builds. ports.conf could be for stuff that only matters to ports building (just stuff under /usr/src). IOW, a config file for the ports tree. Seems silly to have a separate src.conf without a separate ports.conf, as the requirements for them are very different. I had a long, multi-page spec for this written up (gotta love insomnia), but /etc/src.conf appeared while it was still in draft form, so I never finished/submitted it. Sounded like this was the direction things were heading, so I never thought about it further. ports-mgmt/portconf. portconf has horrible syntax, compared to make.conf/src.conf, at least last I tried to use it (when it first came out). And this is geared more toward per-port configuration settings. ports.conf would be for global settings for the whole ports tree, stuff that affects multiple ports. Things like WITH{OUT}_X11, WITH{OUT}_GNOME, CPUTYPE, perl version info, selecting a default python version, etc. Of course, if it's grown those features (global ports settings), then this whole discussion is moot, as one can just ignore make.conf, and use src.conf/portconf config file. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash_at_gmail.comReceived on Fri Jun 04 2010 - 21:30:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:04 UTC