Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:04:57 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interactive ports - the plague Message-ID: <20080303170457.02959c09@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <47CC26F3.7020709@cyberbotx.com> References: <47CBC3C5.9050007@bsdforen.de> <20080303155354.2043d131@gumby.homeunix.com.> <47CC26F3.7020709@cyberbotx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:27:31 -0500 Naram Qashat <cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com> wrote: > RW wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100 > > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> 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. > > > > Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports > > from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). > 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. IIRC these ports refuse to fetch the distfiles, and ask you to fetch them manually from the websites, where you have to agree to the terms, they aren't actually interactive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080303170457.02959c09>