Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:42:46 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup <seb@struchtrup.com> Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <200410140742.54960.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <416DAB2A.3060900@vonostingroup.com> References: <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <20041013193547.GB53895@hub.freebsd.org> <416DAB2A.3060900@vonostingroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 14 October 2004 00:24, Frank J. Laszlo wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:38:40PM +0000, Eivind Eklund wrote: > >>On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:51:01PM -0400, Frank Laszlo wrote: > >>If you've got more *specific* problems with usability (like the batch > >>build problem above),=20 The solution to that is old and well known: set BATCH before you start your= =20 overnight build. I personally think this is all good: The 'surprise' elemen= t=20 is shifted from newbie users using the ports collection interactively (who= =20 don't know anything about ports, let alone port Makefiles or=20 even /etc/make.conf) to routine users who are doing regular 'portupgrade -a= '=20 sessions at night. It's perfectly fine to expect the latter crowd to know a= nd=20 remember about BATCH. > >>I'm very interested, as I'm trying to collect=20 > >>these for doing a new round of fixes for the options support in > >>bsd.port.mk. > > > >BTW, has anyone started to impliment the NO_<portname>_OPTIONS feature > >that was requested? > > That sounds like a great idea to me, I would definately like to devote > some time to implementing such a feature if the demand is there. NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is a detail enhancement for a rather special usage of= =20 the ports collections and it definitely won't help the problem scenario you= =20 describe: That ports you don't anything about yet (i.e., newly added build= =20 dependencies) will pop up an OPTIONS dialog at you.=20 NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is only useful for ports where you a.) Already know t= hey=20 will present you with OPTIONS and b.) You actually already know what OPTION= S=20 you want beforehand and define the WITH/WITHOUT switches somewhere before y= ou=20 start out. In other words, NO_<portname>_OPTIONS is useful for unattended=20 installations of new systems where you have a very specific set of ports=20 (with a very specific configuration) which you're installing onto new=20 machines. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBbhHeXhc68WspdLARAkeRAJ9aMXPIRkPxNReWssXE4SLZqBpUUwCfeMnf PR1+XKsTnlEJC5rlbnwHOZU= =caQ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2912776.yS0LciZ8ai--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410140742.54960.michaelnottebrock>