On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +0000, RW wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:27:31 -0500 > Naram Qashat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > RW wrote: > > > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100 > > > Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
While true there are at least two ports which are interactive beyond OPTIONS and license things. I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in /etc/mail/mailer.conf. security/tripwire asks some setup questions during the post-install. I don't recall how BATCH affects these two ports, if at all. -- WXS _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
