From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 13 23:30:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB78016A407 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:30:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from jay.exetel.com.au (jay.exetel.com.au [220.233.0.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9439343D6A for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:30:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: (qmail 17426 invoked by uid 507); 14 Apr 2006 09:30:30 +1000 Received: from 180.205.233.220.exetel.com.au (HELO ?192.168.0.157?) (220.233.205.180) by jay.exetel.com.au with SMTP; 14 Apr 2006 09:30:30 +1000 In-Reply-To: <200604132042.47188.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <12B35022-89C3-4A5B-ACE3-1C3145974AF9@brooknet.com.au> <200604122223.43721.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <97FBD368-1075-4A9C-9339-8C3524E09DA9@brooknet.com.au> <200604132042.47188.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sam Lawrance Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:30:32 +1000 To: RW X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Cc: dougb@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What does BATCH=yes really mean? (portmaster vs. bpm) 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: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:30:37 -0000 On 14/04/2006, at 5:42 AM, RW wrote: > On Thursday 13 April 2006 09:57, Sam Lawrance wrote: >> On 13/04/2006, at 7:23 AM, RW wrote: > >>> BATCH is an instuction not to build ports with IS_INTERACTIVE set - >>> typically >>> ports with legal conditions that need to be agreed to. >>> >>> It's also used as a hint to build without asking for configuration >>> options. >>> This secondary meaning makes no sense with "make config". It seems >>> to me the >>> ports system is behaving correctly and portmaster is doing >>> something odd. >> >> I'm not so sure about that. I would have expected it to select the >> default set of options, just as it would if you were building with >> BATCH set. > > As I understand it, "make config" would then just do nothing when > BATCH is > set. > > As it stands, someone with BATCH set in a configuration file can still > run "make config" to set options. IMO that's the way it should be > since it's > an explicit request, rather than a side-effect. > > I think it would make sense for portmaster to check for BATCH itself. I think it's weird for portmaster to try and look in to make variables. Anyway, this all seems to be a moot point - portmaster has many interactive steps which seem to be unavoidable.