From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 26 21:17:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C53446; Sun, 26 May 2013 21:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B165E53; Sun, 26 May 2013 21:17:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id EE43D56082; Sun, 26 May 2013 16:17:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:17:34 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Baptiste Daroussin Subject: Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default? Message-ID: <20130526211734.GA18703@lonesome.com> References: <20130523054541.GH96836@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130523054541.GH96836@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:17:37 -0000 We should step back and "define the problem". The problem IMHO is that we have optimized for users who wish to save the maximum space on their systems, at the expense of users who want to install and upgrade ports with the minimum fuss. IMHO we should do the opposite. I think the number of users that care about whether p5-Foo-Bar installs its examples is zero. And yet, those were the dialogs I was presented last night on installing a 9.0 system with the latest ports tree. This seems wrong. Surely we can figure out some global-settings-editor? And, if a value has been set by that tool, and a port's metavariables haven't changed, skip the configuration dialog? mcl