Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:10:08 +1000 From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> To: Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What does BATCH=yes really mean? (portmaster vs. bpm) Message-ID: <731CD3BD-C0C3-4452-81B7-C997547F76FD@brooknet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <443CFB67.6040005@ebs.gr> References: <12B35022-89C3-4A5B-ACE3-1C3145974AF9@brooknet.com.au> <443CFB67.6040005@ebs.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/04/2006, at 11:06 PM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: > Sam Lawrance wrote: >> Just hours ago I went to give sysutils/portmaster a try. An >> OPTIONS selection screen appeared on the first run. I then ran >> the following command, thinking I could leave portmaster going and >> wander off: >> portmaster -a -m "BATCH=yes" >> Again an OPTIONS dialog appeared. It seems that portmaster was >> running the command 'make BATCH=yes config', which is an >> interactive operation. I'm not sure whether this is incorrect >> behaviour from the 'config' target, or perhaps a deficiency in >> portmaster. I'm sure there are easy ways to work around the >> problem, but special cases are pesky. >> Perhaps there are other targets for which this behaviour would be >> unexpected. Thoughts? > > I'm not sure if you implied it in the subject line, but one similar > occasion is when upgrading using sysutils/bpm. Since bpm uses > portupgrade to perform the actual work, a configuration dialog is > waiting for the user's input, but the user is unable to receive > this input and take action. > > I've sent bpm's author a patch that avoids this issue in that > context, but I believe your assumption that BATCH should imply "use > the default options" is correct. OK, I had no idea that sysutils/bpm existed. In my original post, s/ bpm/bsd.port.mk/ :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?731CD3BD-C0C3-4452-81B7-C997547F76FD>