Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:04:58 +0000 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmanager configuration and stunnel options Message-ID: <200603251505.00394.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <200603250221.23897.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <20060324170911.M29859@enabled.com> <200603250221.23897.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 25 March 2006 02:21, RW wrote: > On Friday 24 March 2006 17:13, Noah wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I am trying to figure out the proper options and configuration syntax for > > the portmanager configuration file - pm-020.conf . I cant figure out > > what the proper stunnel switches to automatically keep the stunnel GID > > and UID. At hte moment stunnel requires manual intervention during each > > upgrade. I just want to keep the UID and GID as is and not delete them. > > How would I instruct portmanager to handle this gracefully. > > I don't think you can do anything about this. Actually I was wrong, I just took a look at the stunnel pkg-deinstall script and it does check whether BATCH is set before prompting. The problem is that most people set BATCH via make, whereas pkg-deinstall is a shell script invoked by pkg_delete. portmanager, portupgrade and "make deinstall" all have this problem, and there are several ports that behave like this. It would be nice if portmanager and portupgrade could handle this by doing a "make -V BATCH" and checking their respective configuration files before running pkg_delete, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At the moment the solution is to export BATCH=yes from somewhere. The problem is that that's global, and not per port.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603251505.00394.list-freebsd-2004>