Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:42:46 +0200
From:      Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Cc:        Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup <seb@struchtrup.com>
Subject:   Re: alternative options for ports
Message-ID:  <200410140742.54960.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <416DAB2A.3060900@vonostingroup.com>
References:  <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <20041013193547.GB53895@hub.freebsd.org> <416DAB2A.3060900@vonostingroup.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 14 October 2004 00:24, Frank J. Laszlo wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> >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:
> >>If you've got more *specific* problems with usability (like the batch
> >>build problem above),=20

The solution to that is old and well known: set BATCH before you start your=
=20
overnight build. I personally think this is all good: The 'surprise' elemen=
t=20
is shifted from newbie users using the ports collection interactively (who=
=20
don't know anything about ports, let alone port Makefiles or=20
even /etc/make.conf) to routine users who are doing regular 'portupgrade -a=
'=20
sessions at night. It's perfectly fine to expect the latter crowd to know a=
nd=20
remember about BATCH.

> >>I'm very interested, as I'm trying to collect=20
> >>these for doing a new round of fixes for the options support in
> >>bsd.port.mk.
> >
> >BTW, has anyone started to impliment the NO_<portname>_OPTIONS feature
> >that was requested?
>
> That sounds like a great idea to me, I would definately like to devote
> some time to implementing such a feature if the demand is there.

NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is a detail enhancement for a rather special usage of=
=20
the ports collections and it definitely won't help the problem scenario you=
=20
describe: That ports you don't anything about yet (i.e., newly added build=
=20
dependencies) will pop up an OPTIONS dialog at you.=20

NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is only useful for ports where you a.) Already know t=
hey=20
will present you with OPTIONS and b.) You actually already know what OPTION=
S=20
you want beforehand and define the WITH/WITHOUT switches somewhere before y=
ou=20
start out. In other words, NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is useful for unattended=20
installations of new systems where you have a very specific set of ports=20
(with a very specific configuration) which you're installing onto new=20
machines.

=2D-=20
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi@freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org

--nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBBbhHeXhc68WspdLARAkeRAJ9aMXPIRkPxNReWssXE4SLZqBpUUwCfeMnf
PR1+XKsTnlEJC5rlbnwHOZU=
=caQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410140742.54960.michaelnottebrock>