Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:09:51 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> To: Rob Lytle <jan6146@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sysinstall is still inadequate after all of these years / sorry I started flame war Message-ID: <486DB09F.4080803@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <784966050807032138g7ed2da8chf15f185a6a6bf302@mail.gmail.com> References: <784966050807022128g6a6ebfebtc1f57c0da66779bc@mail.gmail.com> <20080703215537.6F3114504E@ptavv.es.net> <784966050807032126m69eedb98nf0ccaed548fc96ef@mail.gmail.com> <486DA7FC.8050304@math.missouri.edu> <784966050807032138g7ed2da8chf15f185a6a6bf302@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rob Lytle wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith < > stephen@math.missouri.edu> wrote: > >> Rob Lytle wrote: >> >>> Hi Kevin, >>> >>> The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt >>> that >>> its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done. >>> >>> I use portupgrade for all ports. >>> >>> i strongly disagree with using ports for huge packages. I don't have the >>> time to waste compiling. Plus, you are presented with numerous nag >>> screens >>> so you have to babysit the whole process. >>> >> You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into >> /etc/make.conf. (Not that this negates your other points.) > > > What the hell does "yes" mean? That all option boxes are checked, or none > at all? I have never seen this explained anywhere. It means it acts as though you didn't change any of the check boxes at all. (So either the default, or if it was previously set in /var/db/ports, then what that is.) It is explained in "man ports" but not in great detail.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?486DB09F.4080803>