Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:13:55 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive portupgrade without being interrupted by configuration screens? Message-ID: <44wrq0plf0.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> (Jerry's message of "Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:55:41 -0400") References: <4ca708f4.svuMWmkOCHSjxBDf%mueller6727@bellsouth.net> <AANLkTikrHxMdJnMnXCHn7ON8FSC6BMAvjLvke6-tYPKj@mail.gmail.com> <90CBD45F-CB00-4656-A5BB-836FE6401B8A@polands.org> <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jerry <freebsd.user@seibercom.net> writes: > On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:05:33 -0500 > Doug Poland <doug@polands.org> articulated: > >> If I understand the OPs question correctly, I believe setting the >> environment variable BATCH=yes will give desired results with >> portupgrade. This will cause port compile defaults to be used in >> lieu of an existing /var/db/ports/*/options file. > > I was of the opinion, and I could be wrong, that setting 'BATCH=yes' > simply stopped the build process from attempting to create an options > file; however, it would use an existing one if it was present. Perhaps > someone with more intimate knowledge of this would care to comment. I > say this because I have used the BATCH technique once I had all of my > ports configured the way I wanted. Subsequent updates always appeared to > use any existing configuration files. In two minutes of looking at bsd.port.mk, I confirmed that this is correct.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44wrq0plf0.fsf>