From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 18:55:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5581065675 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:55:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8B88FC2D for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:55:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.72.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6D6405BB3; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47CC49B8.6080501@bsdforen.de> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080303) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW References: <47CBC3C5.9050007@bsdforen.de> <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interactive ports - the plague X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:55:55 -0000 RW wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100 > Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> I don't mind ports that use the config framework. You can deal with >> them without trouble by setting BATCH, using portmaster or >> portconfig-recursive from bsdadminscripts. >> >> But I find ports like ghostscript-gpl that open an ncurses dialogue >> between configure and build stage very annoying. They are the reason >> one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having >> finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, >> because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that >> doesn't even remember what I choose last time. >> >> I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' >> Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. > > Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from > building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. > In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if > you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default > option? I'd prefer the port to use the ports config framework. In that case I'd even bother to go through the list of drivers and make choices. At the moment I just select OK, because what I choose won't be remembered the next time anyway.