Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121007234043.cadf5863.freebsd>