Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:42:44 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: dougb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What does BATCH=yes really mean? (portmaster vs. bpm) Message-ID: <200604132042.47188.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <97FBD368-1075-4A9C-9339-8C3524E09DA9@brooknet.com.au> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200604132042.47188.list-freebsd-2004>