Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form
'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate.
Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer
the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed
to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather
obvious workaround?
I don't recall this behaviour at all, I think you're confused with
the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which
say "Add 'foo_enable="YES"'" to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this
port.
Edwin
Hmm. I remember this behavioour, but I can't find any example of it
now. I need to go look up into my old cdroms (they're around here
somewheres, I just need to go unearth them, way back to 1.0). Until I
can prove this, I guess I will withdraw it, but I do remember this
behavior. Ports, a long time back, used to do all the install steps
that they reasonably could do. Couldn't do all the setups for things
like dovecot, which has too many options, but even there, an attempt was
made to change the conf file to something closer to a FreeBSD standard.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
