Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:43:46 +0100 From: Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> To: ruby@FreeBSD.org, Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org>, Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> Subject: portupgrade not passing BATCH? [Fwd: Re: ports/mail/nullmailer: nudge re BATCH] Message-ID: <4A9C19E2.2090200@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040500000601030903010103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi guys, I noticed nullmailer's deinstall script was prompting for input, during a portupgrade -a. Greg looked at the issue and found that portupgrade wasn't even passing BATCH in the environment, during deinstallation. Are you already aware of the issue? Do any patches exist? thanks, BMS --------------040500000601030903010103 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: ports/mail/nullmailer: nudge re BATCH.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: ports/mail/nullmailer: nudge re BATCH.eml" Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by store75m.internal (Cyrus v2.3.14-fmsvn20249-7d77aea6) with LMTPA; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:15 -0400 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3 X-Spam-score: 0.0 X-Spam-source: IP='72.32.213.11', Host='113901-app1.sourcehosting.net', Country='US', FromHeader='org', MailFrom='org' X-Spam-charsets: plain='ISO-8859-1' X-Delivered-to: bms@incunabulum.net Received: from mx1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.200]) by compute1.internal (LMTPProxy); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:15 -0400 Received: from mail1.sourcehosting.net (113901-app1.sourcehosting.net [72.32.213.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50832123 for <bms@incunabulum.net>; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 68-189-245-235.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com ([68.189.245.235] helo=cube.entropy.prv) by mail1.sourcehosting.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <glarkin@FreeBSD.org>) id 1MiBlW-0000YG-8Q for bms@incunabulum.net; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:11 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fireball.entropy.prv [192.168.1.12]) by cube.entropy.prv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5735B33E753B for <bms@incunabulum.net>; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A9C188B.3090601@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:03 -0400 From: Greg Larkin <glarkin@FreeBSD.org> Reply-To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Subject: Re: ports/mail/nullmailer: nudge re BATCH References: <4A965D25.3040409@incunabulum.net> <4A982562.2050503@FreeBSD.org> <4A98FFF3.6060608@incunabulum.net> In-Reply-To: <4A98FFF3.6060608@incunabulum.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=1C940290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Remote-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Truedomain-DKIM: None X-Truedomain: Neutral -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Simpson wrote: > Greg Larkin wrote: >> I just tried "make BATCH=yes install clean", and I was not prompted for >> any input. Can you send me the command that you're using to install the >> port so I can try to reproduce the problem here? >> > > If I have nullmailer installed on a system, and I do 'portupgrade -a > --batch', then during the deinstall step, the pkg-deinstall script seems > to prompt for input even though portupgrade has set BATCH=yes in the > environment. > > cheers, > BMS Hi Bruce, Thanks for the clarification on that. I haven't tried using portupgrade in batch mode much, but looking at its source code, it turns out that this is a bug in portupgrade itself. For some reason, the --batch flag only sets BATCH=yes for port installation. When it calls pkg_deinstall, it does not set the variable. You can see this in lines 1967->1974 of the portupgrade script (version 2.4.6,2). I would create a patch for the script and open a PR against it. It should be pretty easy for the maintainer to verify that feature and commit it, unless there is some other reason that he has chosen not to implement it that way. Best regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKnBiL0sRouByUApARAgKNAJ9zxk+BIfEWEwKy1oEtXa0aSC7vZgCeIvSl KP7jjepGoiK/rRwKERXg4/Q= =lwAC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------040500000601030903010103--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A9C19E2.2090200>