Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 12:21:10 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive portupgrade without being interrupted by configuration screens? Message-ID: <AANLkTikqKy2kLU2kyHUy6ahUnFsriyAbgBV5-Eo%2BSE3O@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> 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
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Jerry <freebsd.user@seibercom.net> wrote: > 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. > That approach doesn't really make a lot of sense if non-fault options aren't suitable for you. Once you set the port options, the options screen doesn't appear anyway(BATCH=no) unless options have changed. With your usage, a port with non-standard options could be changed, and your build wouldn't be what you expect it to be. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikqKy2kLU2kyHUy6ahUnFsriyAbgBV5-Eo%2BSE3O>