Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:00:44 +0100 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs Message-ID: <473CA56C.4050405@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <473CA416.2040300@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> <47394287.6050303@gmx.de> <473CA416.2040300@chuckr.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Chuck Robey wrote:
> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>> Chuck Robey wrote:
>>> RW wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
>>>> Tino Engel <elrap@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RW schrieb:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
>>>>>> Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
>>>>>>> buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either
>>>>>>> requires someone to be chained to the computer, so as to intercept
>>>>>>> all those screens, or to simply agree to install everything, with
>>>>>>> no inpput whatever.
>>>>>> That's not correct, you can run make config-conditional or make
>>>>>> config-recursive anytime you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But not on a portupgrade... I don't want to run config-recursive on
>>>>> the whole ports tree though....
>>>> 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, 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. 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.
>>
>> It will only operate on 10000 ports if you have 10000 ports installed
>> and a
>> majority of them is outdated.
>
> Are you seriously saying that a decision regarding what ports are to be
> installed should be made after they are installed? If you have 10,000
> ports installed, you obviously have no need whatever to make any
> decision at all. Whether or not they are outdated is utterly
> irrelevant, because if they're installed, it may be inferred that you
> wanted them. It's the decision whether to install them or not that
> we're talking about.
>
> Upgrading has no bearing whatever on this. Why do you bring that up?
>
We're talking about a suggested shell script that calls config-recursive for
outdated ports. I did not bring that up.
I'm out of this. It's a bikeshed after all.
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?473CA56C.4050405>