Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:34:32 +0000 From: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup <seb@struchtrup.com> Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org> References: <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <416C35A5.4040703@vonostingroup.com> <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:38:40PM +0000, Eivind Eklund wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:51:01PM -0400, Frank Laszlo wrote: > > I personally do not like dialog's in ports, period. It makes unattended > > builds a pain, mostly when compiling large ports with an extensive list > > of depends, you never know which dependency is going to pop up a dialog > > in the middle of an all-night build. Hear, hear! > Presently, you can set BATCH for your batch builds. This already > disables the option requesters, falling back to the old behaviour. We should add a NO_OPTIONS option also. As 'BATCH' does more than just turn off OPTIONS. ('BATCH' should of course imply 'NO_OPTIONS'). > We need to resolve the overall sitation around compile time > configuration of FreeBSD ports. .. > If you've got more *specific* problems with usability (like the batch > build problem above), I'm very interested, as I'm trying to collect > these for doing a new round of fixes for the options support in > bsd.port.mk. OPTIONS isn't the answer -- they don't do anything for 'pkg_add -r' users. Since we go to a *lot* of work building packages and making them available there must be a huge number of consumers of them. We should be making more port variations. vim-gtk, vim-kde, vim-athena, vim-motif for instance. That way a pkg_add user and get what they want. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041013193432.GA53895>