Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:55:41 -0400 From: Jerry <freebsd.user@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive portupgrade without being interrupted by configuration screens? Message-ID: <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <90CBD45F-CB00-4656-A5BB-836FE6401B8A@polands.org> References: <4ca708f4.svuMWmkOCHSjxBDf%mueller6727@bellsouth.net> <AANLkTikrHxMdJnMnXCHn7ON8FSC6BMAvjLvke6-tYPKj@mail.gmail.com> <90CBD45F-CB00-4656-A5BB-836FE6401B8A@polands.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Jerry ✌ FreeBSD.user@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ I can't mate in captivity. Gloria Steinem, on why she has never married
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101002115541.0e8996e4>