Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:38:53 -0700 From: "Rob Lytle" <jan6146@gmail.com> To: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Subject: Re: Sysinstall is still inadequate after all of these years / sorry I started flame war Message-ID: <784966050807032138g7ed2da8chf15f185a6a6bf302@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <486DA7FC.8050304@math.missouri.edu> References: <784966050807022128g6a6ebfebtc1f57c0da66779bc@mail.gmail.com> <20080703215537.6F3114504E@ptavv.es.net> <784966050807032126m69eedb98nf0ccaed548fc96ef@mail.gmail.com> <486DA7FC.8050304@math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith < stephen@math.missouri.edu> wrote: > Rob Lytle wrote: > >> Hi Kevin, >> >> The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt >> that >> its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done. >> >> I use portupgrade for all ports. >> >> i strongly disagree with using ports for huge packages. I don't have the >> time to waste compiling. Plus, you are presented with numerous nag >> screens >> so you have to babysit the whole process. >> > > You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into > /etc/make.conf. (Not that this negates your other points.) What the hell does "yes" mean? That all option boxes are checked, or none at all? I have never seen this explained anywhere. Rob -- ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/user/whiteflluffyclouds (Ham radio videos)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?784966050807032138g7ed2da8chf15f185a6a6bf302>