Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:51:27 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Subject: Re: Ports with GUI configs Message-ID: <4738AEBF.4010109@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4738ADC8.2060005@gmx.de> 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> <4738ACDD.50108@u.washington.edu> <4738ADC8.2060005@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > Garrett Cooper wrote: > >> 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 >> > > Are you talking about make config-recursive? > Yes =\. Lemme guess.. that's already an option :)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4738AEBF.4010109>