Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:47:20 +0100 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs Message-ID: <4738ADC8.2060005@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4738ACDD.50108@u.washington.edu> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Cooper wrote: > Chuck Robey wrote: >> RW wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800 >>> "Mark D. Foster" <mark@foster.cc> wrote: >>> >>>> Vince wrote: >>>>> Ashley Moran wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI >>>>>> configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the >>>>>> wall. I've lost count of the number of times I've come back to a >>>>>> big install to find it hanging on a config screen. Possibly I'm >>>>>> missing something. >>>>> I agree though, I often suffer the same problem, coming back after >>>>> a few hours to a build that should have finished to find its >>>>> sitting on the first dependency. >>>>> >>>> Maybe it's been suggested before (in which case I add my vote) but a >>>> timeout mechanism would solve this... give the user 10s to provide a >>>> keypress else bailout and use the "default" options. >>>> >>> >>> That would involve standing-over the build for hours or days in case >>> you miss a 10-second window - it's just not practical IMO. >>> >>> >>> Setting the menus is pretty easy to script, and you can also set BATCH >>> to take the default options >> >> A suggestion I recently made on the ports list would, as a side >> effect, make a better solution. You see, allowing a default timer >> does get things built, but then it allows no user input to let users >> avoid installing software that they either have no ise for, or do not >> want for other reasons. I have enough input now, so I'm going ahead >> and coding up the Makefile mods to allow my system, but it looks >> somewhat like the Gentoo Portage "USE" flags system. Not identical, >> and I am only proposing to use their USE flags, not the rest (I very >> much like using Makefiles as FreeBSD ports does, and wouldn't change >> that.) >> >> If you want to see what it is, go look at recent postings on ports >> list. It'll probably get changed, as I get something for folks to >> look at and discuss. > > USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years). > Introducing that type of complexity into a ports system isn't necessary > and does unexpected things at times for end-users when developers change > variable names or behavior, which happened quite often with Gentoo. > make config-all or something similar to have people fill in their > desired config info in all of the ncurses config sections would however > be a much better idea I think.. > -Garrett Are you talking about make config-recursive?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4738ADC8.2060005>