From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 2 17:21:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418251065672 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:21:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC418FC12 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz15 with SMTP id 15so3762789bwz.13 for ; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Blg3k3dEGTpTWDnb/dSf/i0Q1r4osoEDCDeTGOmF4lo=; b=o+ENy00YJ0BJWmzDKw4Qz/4RPSZMvSdX9shEOA4W9gZbrX/oel2rbchtltl19fLgoU pyupU0hVNCqwuI392cSpwn4HUVKOV1nKMOP0SAZJb7M0LSTRB4b8Oa/cQbQJtL+3zXsu RL/9vqFsPIGpBNK+shoxy+WqZfwpilNwQ7VpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=gPPMz85O8eBTo4W4Bgf5D+hbbTypqudHXKJ8IshM4RQTMUXTCLeEtp0XeNPXzSi8BA DI86NT7/9/IxmZZHpzUUEzSWVqijxV0bsswWWNKbID4K+T8Sc9KJuaLaM4gbYG5fL5Mk ejUM0zAads2W0d3dBevG4bkJ7FWnkiKRH85V4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.57.9 with SMTP id a9mr5257458bkh.104.1286040070340; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.81.138 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> References: <4ca708f4.svuMWmkOCHSjxBDf%mueller6727@bellsouth.net> <90CBD45F-CB00-4656-A5BB-836FE6401B8A@polands.org> <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 12:21:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Massive portupgrade without being interrupted by configuration screens? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:21:12 -0000 On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Jerry wrote: > I was of the opinion, and I could be wrong, that setting 'BATCH=yes' > simply stopped the build process from attempting to create an options > file; however, it would use an existing one if it was present. Perhaps > someone with more intimate knowledge of this would care to comment. I > say this because I have used the BATCH technique once I had all of my > ports configured the way I wanted. Subsequent updates always appeared to > use any existing configuration files. > That approach doesn't really make a lot of sense if non-fault options aren't suitable for you. Once you set the port options, the options screen doesn't appear anyway(BATCH=no) unless options have changed. With your usage, a port with non-standard options could be changed, and your build wouldn't be what you expect it to be. -- Adam Vande More