From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 15 20:00:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0207116A419 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6203213C447 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:00:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2007 20:00:47 -0000 Received: from nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (EHLO mobileKamikaze.norad) [129.13.72.169] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 15 Nov 2007 21:00:47 +0100 X-Authenticated: #5465401 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+V+UUhWqOV1fN6NB1mzpFp5CEGVmC8CeP1vTZbv1 EPWbw0/kC8Dv73 Message-ID: <473CA56C.4050405@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:00:44 +0100 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071101) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Robey References: <2852884D-270A-4879-B960-C10A602E080E@ashleymoran.me.uk> <47387891.2060007@unsane.co.uk> <47387BCA.6080604@foster.cc> <20071112183502.438b44b8@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738A71A.6060100@chuckr.org> <4738ACDD.50108@u.washington.edu> <4738ADC8.2060005@gmx.de> <4738AEBF.4010109@u.washington.edu> <4738C145.2050601@chuckr.org> <20071112214240.5d3b048a@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738CB99.5000807@web.de> <20071112235921.11ae8c0a@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738FFC7.7000309@chuckr.org> <47394287.6050303@gmx.de> <473CA416.2040300@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <473CA416.2040300@chuckr.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: RW , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:00:51 -0000 Chuck Robey wrote: > [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: >> Chuck Robey wrote: >>> RW wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100 >>>> Tino Engel wrote: >>>> >>>>> RW schrieb: >>>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500 >>>>>> Chuck Robey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports >>>>>>> buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either >>>>>>> requires someone to be chained to the computer, so as to intercept >>>>>>> all those screens, or to simply agree to install everything, with >>>>>>> no inpput whatever. >>>>>> That's not correct, you can run make config-conditional or make >>>>>> config-recursive anytime you like. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> But not on a portupgrade... I don't want to run config-recursive on >>>>> the whole ports tree though.... >>>> It's not hard to script it though, something like the following >>>> would do >>>> >>>> #!/bin/sh >>>> for p in `pkg_version -ol'<' |awk '{ print $1 }'`; do >>>> cd /usr/ports/${p} && make config-recursive done >>> I can't believe you actually suggested this. First thing, it would take >>> you HOURS to complete, and you better not make even one mistake, 'cause >>> you couldn't even go back far enough to figure out what the name was of >>> the port you muffed. Beyond that, since most ports ask questions formed >>> with the name of the target dependency, aznd not asking things like "do >>> you want such-and-such capability", so you have to be conversant with >>> the names and capabilities of nearly 10,000 ports, to be able to do that >>> job. >> >> It will only operate on 10000 ports if you have 10000 ports installed >> and a >> majority of them is outdated. > > Are you seriously saying that a decision regarding what ports are to be > installed should be made after they are installed? If you have 10,000 > ports installed, you obviously have no need whatever to make any > decision at all. Whether or not they are outdated is utterly > irrelevant, because if they're installed, it may be inferred that you > wanted them. It's the decision whether to install them or not that > we're talking about. > > Upgrading has no bearing whatever on this. Why do you bring that up? > We're talking about a suggested shell script that calls config-recursive for outdated ports. I did not bring that up. I'm out of this. It's a bikeshed after all.