From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 16:43:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282CB106566C for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:43:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com) Received: from QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6E38FC21 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:43:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com) Received: from OMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.28]) by QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wgSE1Y0020cQ2SLA200Q00; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:26:58 +0000 Received: from kirby.cyberbotx.com ([68.43.195.82]) by OMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wgTX1Y00B1n8LeU8W00000; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:27:33 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=MYn0rjrsiEVGkGHbtLUA:9 a=aPHJ5UdyPC40d5G8J8MA:7 a=tw-BpZjdaYaow_q3phjKPUsJ6U4A:4 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=4oA0XKIC2igA:10 Message-ID: <47CC26F3.7020709@cyberbotx.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:27:31 -0500 From: Naram Qashat User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080229) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW References: <47CBC3C5.9050007@bsdforen.de> <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interactive ports - the plague 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:43:34 -0000 RW wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100 > Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> I don't mind ports that use the config framework. You can deal with >> them without trouble by setting BATCH, using portmaster or >> portconfig-recursive from bsdadminscripts. >> >> But I find ports like ghostscript-gpl that open an ncurses dialogue >> between configure and build stage very annoying. They are the reason >> one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having >> finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, >> because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that >> doesn't even remember what I choose last time. >> >> I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' >> Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. > > Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from > building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). > > In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if > you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default > option? I believe a good example of what he might be talking about is the jdk ports. Because of the licensing of those ports, they will bring up an EULA that you need to read and then type "yes" afterwards. Even with BATCH set, it still stops at that EULA. Naram Qashat > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >