Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interactive ports - the plague Message-ID: <47CC49B8.6080501@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <47CBC3C5.9050007@bsdforen.de> <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100 > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: > >> I don't mind ports that use the config framework. You can deal with >> them without trouble by setting BATCH, using portmaster or >> portconfig-recursive from bsdadminscripts. >> >> But I find ports like ghostscript-gpl that open an ncurses dialogue >> between configure and build stage very annoying. They are the reason >> one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having >> finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, >> because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that >> doesn't even remember what I choose last time. >> >> I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' >> Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. > > Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from > building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. > In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if > you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default > option? I'd prefer the port to use the ports config framework. In that case I'd even bother to go through the list of drivers and make choices. At the moment I just select OK, because what I choose won't be remembered the next time anyway.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47CC49B8.6080501>