--- James Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 05:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: backyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Using portconf and
> > To: email@example.com
> > Message-ID:
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> > if ruby uses ncurses, that blue menu thing, you
> > to add BATCH=Yes as a build option to skip the
> > and build it with the options you have selected.
> You missed the point. If I were to set batch mode
> on, then
I meant set BATCH as an option only to the ruby knob,
then it would only apply to that build.
> it would just build WITHOUT the options I selected.
> The fact
> that the config box came up with RDOC and IPV6 still
> suggests to me that portconf isn't recognizing my
> entries in
maybe but if portconf doesn't automatically apply a
BATCH build then you WILL ALWAYS get a screen that
will default to what is in the Makefile, not what you
passed to make -DFOO -DBAR. Unless you use the
previous options but I'm not certain how to tell make
to use the existing options file.
> > don't know much about portconf
> Thanks all the same.
is portconf supposed to automagically apply a batch
build??? I'm confused...
that is why I keep it simple with stuff like this
I also do stuff like that to include sup files so I
can independantly update ports and src because when
both are set in the make.conf it seems to always
update both. sometimes this is not what I really want.
and in ports.conf
# comment out all the build options
# from the Makefile copyed in for reference
WITH_STUFF=no # == WITH_STUFF=YES, use WITHOUT_STUFF
there was a nice thing I found on google when
retaining options portupgrade
or something along those lines. Why use ports to do
something make already understands. At least that is
my logic. especially if you have to type up a
configuration file anyway... You could keep things in
just make.conf but things get messy after a while.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"