Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:59:09 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs Message-ID: <20071113045909.7f31c5e6@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <4738FFC7.7000309@chuckr.org> References: <2852884D-270A-4879-B960-C10A602E080E@ashleymoran.me.uk> <47387891.2060007@unsane.co.uk> <47387BCA.6080604@foster.cc> <20071112183502.438b44b8@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738A71A.6060100@chuckr.org> <4738ACDD.50108@u.washington.edu> <4738ADC8.2060005@gmx.de> <4738AEBF.4010109@u.washington.edu> <4738C145.2050601@chuckr.org> <20071112214240.5d3b048a@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738CB99.5000807@web.de> <20071112235921.11ae8c0a@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738FFC7.7000309@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:37:11 -0500
Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
> > Tino Engel <elrap@web.de> wrote:
> > It's not hard to script it though, something like the following
> > would do
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > for p in `pkg_version -ol'<' |awk '{ print $1 }'`; do
> > cd /usr/ports/${p} && make config-recursive
> > done
>
> I can't believe you actually suggested this.
> First thing, it would take you HOURS to complete,
Typically you can do "make config-recursive"'s about 10-30 times per
minute on average - most installed ports have few dependencies. It's
also only running over out-of-date ports, so it only takes minutes,
even for major upgrades.
I now use config-conditional which is faster, and works well enough in
practice not to warrant the extra time.
> and you better not make even one mistake,
> 'cause you couldn't even go back far enough to figure out what the
> name was of the port you muffed.
Both config-recursive and config-conditional use cached options where
availible. Options are pretty stable, so even in a major upgrade I only
see a few screens, and 90% of the time they are all trivial.
> Beyond that, since most ports ask
> questions formed with the name of the target dependency, aznd not
> asking things like "do you want such-and-such capability", so you
> have to be conversant with the names and capabilities of nearly
> 10,000 ports, to be able to do that job.
I find the one-line descriptions to be pretty good, and my experience
has been that if I don't understand an option, I don't need to change it
from the default.
For the most part, I find that the more inscrutable options are internal
to the port, and have nothing to do with dependencies or any global
setting, for example the patch options in dns/djbdns.
> Were you really seriously suggesting this. It's so unworkable, its
> laughable.
I've been doing it this way for a long time, it works fine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071113045909.7f31c5e6>