From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 12 21:23:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C350B16A4CF for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:23:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C417543D99 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:23:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from frontend2.internal (frontend2.internal [10.202.2.151]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769F8D47D35 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.152]) by frontend2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:23:23 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: f1UBkbmKTajlnE3OLudTOr95O7oja5Z+TiSgVXWMnami 1144877003 Received: from bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by frontend3.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A7851FF for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:23:23 -0400 (EDT) From: RW To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:23:42 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <12B35022-89C3-4A5B-ACE3-1C3145974AF9@brooknet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <12B35022-89C3-4A5B-ACE3-1C3145974AF9@brooknet.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604122223.43721.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: What does BATCH=yes really mean? (portmaster vs. bpm) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:23:54 -0000 On Wednesday 12 April 2006 13:18, 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. BATCH is an instuction not to build ports with IS_INTERACTIVE set - typically ports with legal conditions that need to be agreed to. It's also used as a hint to build without asking for configuration options. This secondary meaning makes no sense with "make config". It seems to me the ports system is behaving correctly and portmaster is doing something odd.