Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:43:25 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs Message-ID: <4738ACDD.50108@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4738A71A.6060100@chuckr.org> References: <2852884D-270A-4879-B960-C10A602E080E@ashleymoran.me.uk> <47387891.2060007@unsane.co.uk> <47387BCA.6080604@foster.cc> <20071112183502.438b44b8@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4738A71A.6060100@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: > RW wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800 >> "Mark D. Foster" <mark@foster.cc> wrote: >> >>> Vince wrote: >>>> Ashley Moran wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI >>>>> configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the >>>>> wall. I've lost count of the number of times I've come back to a >>>>> big install to find it hanging on a config screen. Possibly I'm >>>>> missing something. >>>> I agree though, I often suffer the same problem, coming back after >>>> a few hours to a build that should have finished to find its >>>> sitting on the first dependency. >>>> >>> Maybe it's been suggested before (in which case I add my vote) but a >>> timeout mechanism would solve this... give the user 10s to provide a >>> keypress else bailout and use the "default" options. >>> >> >> That would involve standing-over the build for hours or days in case >> you miss a 10-second window - it's just not practical IMO. >> >> >> Setting the menus is pretty easy to script, and you can also set BATCH >> to take the default options > > A suggestion I recently made on the ports list would, as a side > effect, make a better solution. You see, allowing a default timer > does get things built, but then it allows no user input to let users > avoid installing software that they either have no ise for, or do not > want for other reasons. I have enough input now, so I'm going ahead > and coding up the Makefile mods to allow my system, but it looks > somewhat like the Gentoo Portage "USE" flags system. Not identical, > and I am only proposing to use their USE flags, not the rest (I very > much like using Makefiles as FreeBSD ports does, and wouldn't change > that.) > > If you want to see what it is, go look at recent postings on ports > list. It'll probably get changed, as I get something for folks to > look at and discuss. USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years). Introducing that type of complexity into a ports system isn't necessary and does unexpected things at times for end-users when developers change variable names or behavior, which happened quite often with Gentoo. make config-all or something similar to have people fill in their desired config info in all of the ncurses config sections would however be a much better idea I think.. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4738ACDD.50108>