Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:40:43 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building Ports: Is there a "make" equivalent for --batch ? Message-ID: <20121007234043.cadf5863.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <14763.1349644184@tristatelogic.com> References: <14763.1349644184@tristatelogic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:09:44 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Nowadays, whenever I use portinstall/portupgrade, I use the --batch > option, so that I don't have to sit around at the console, waiting > for and then accepting the default build options for a boatload of > depended-upon ports for whatever I am actually trying to install or > upgrade. A workaround (and not directly the answer to your question) is to process the config dialogs before starting the build: # make config-recursive Once set, the options won't be requested on a second run. According to "man 7 ports", there's a BATCH setting, but it is descibed as: If defined, only operate on a port if it can be installed 100% automatically. If the default settings are okay for you, simply "entering through" the dialogs should work fine. I don't see any other significant reference in the manpage, so using portinstall --batch (or portmaster's equivalent if you're using that tool) should be the best solution. > The problem is that these days, portupgrade itself is, apparently, > dependent upon a whole slew of other ports. Usually portmaster is considered an alternative, and instructions on how to use it to solve port changes are provided when an entry to /usr/ports/UPDATING is added. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121007234043.cadf5863.freebsd>