Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:57:25 +0000 (GMT) From: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller6727@bellsouth.net> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: which ports require dialog during update Message-ID: <20111024085726.172A51065670@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20111022080608.C0136106566B@hub.freebsd.org> <4EA3109A.4050402@FreeBSD.org> <20111023100740.CAA8D1065670@hub.freebsd.org> <4EA4B792.2000906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
from Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>:
> > I like to save a build log, would the config-recursive part be
> > disrupted or disruptive?
> I don't understand that question either. :) portmaster has an option to
> log build/install, and it's completely separate from the process of
> showing the user the config dialogs. The configuration option to save
> those logs is in the portmaster man page.
> > NetBSD pkgsrc, which has been ported to other mostly (quasi-)Unix
> > OSes as well, has a better way: putting options in /etc/mk.conf : not
> > to say NetBSD pkgsrc is better than FreeBSD ports system, just that
> > they have a good idea in this aspect.
> You might want to look at ports-mgmt/portconf. In many ways the OPTIONS
> dialog is superior to having to write out options in config files. OTOH,
> a needed improvement to it is that the defaults should take the settings
> that are already in the environment into account.
> Doug
The disruptive part is in
make package-recursive | & tee build.log
or equally with 'make install clean'
Then the config dialog messes up and is practically impossible to navigate.
Only hope is to go to another virtual terminal and make config on the port that called up the config dialog.
So would portmaster give me a similar log file without conio and stdio going to war with each other?
Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111024085726.172A51065670>