On 10/24/2011 01:57, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> So would portmaster give me a similar log file without conio and stdio going
> to war with each other?
To the extent that I understand your question, I think portmaster can
help. Why don't you install it, read the man page, and give it a try.
Doug
from Doug Barton :
> > I like to save a build log, would the config-recursive part be
> > disrupted or disruptive?
> I don't understand that question either. :) portmaster has an option to
> log build/install, and it's completely separate from the process of
> showing the user the config dialo
On 10/23/2011 02:48, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> from Doug Barton :
>
>> I like to have all config dialogs done and out of the way.
>
>> You might want to consider using portmaster, which handles that
>> (and a bunch of other stuff) for you.
>
> I think portmaster has an equivalent for 'portupgrade
On 23/10/2011 10:48, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> NetBSD pkgsrc, which has been ported to other mostly (quasi-)Unix
> OSes as well, has a better way: putting options in /etc/mk.conf : not
> to say NetBSD pkgsrc is better than FreeBSD ports system, just that
> they have a good idea in this aspect.
That
from Doug Barton :
> I like to have all config dialogs done and out of the way.
> You might want to consider using portmaster, which handles that (and a
> bunch of other stuff) for you.
I think portmaster has an equivalent for 'portupgrade -R' to portupgrade
dependencies?
I think one would use
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Galati, Michael wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no good way of upgrading packages on FreeBSD
(that I'm aware of, at least). My solution (crude as it may be) has
been to remove all the packages and reinstall.
There's pkg_upgrade from sysutils/bsdadminscripts.
___
Not exactly an answer to your question, but I use the batch flag to bypass
configuration menus. If you have one or two ports you do not install with
default settings, you can go back and install manually.
On Oct 20, 2011 9:54 PM, "Paul Macdonald" wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to tell which ports m
> >Hi, Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input
> during update, i have some auto update scripts
> > Stop doing this.
> >
> > Your update scripts do not read /usr/ports/UPDATING.
> > Your update scripts do not read package changelogs.
> >
> > What you're doing is irresponsible
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Paul Macdonald wrote:
Can i programmatically tell if user input is required?
It might require reinventing the logic used by the ports system
Makefiles. Or maybe there's a way to run make config-recursive but get
dialog to immediately cancel any config screens that appea
On 2011/10/21 11:21, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 10/21/11 11:14 AM, Paul Macdonald wrote:
Hi, Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input
during update, i have some auto update scripts
Stop doing this.
Your update scripts do not read /usr/ports/UPDATING.
Your update scripts
On 10/21/11 11:14 AM, Paul Macdonald wrote:
>>Hi, Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input
> during update, i have some auto update scripts
>> Stop doing this.
>>
>> Your update scripts do not read /usr/ports/UPDATING.
>> Your update scripts do not read package changelogs.
>>
>Hi, Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input
during update, i have some auto update scripts
Stop doing this.
Your update scripts do not read /usr/ports/UPDATING.
Your update scripts do not read package changelogs.
What you're doing is irresponsible, and potentially dangero
On 10/21/11 9:53 AM, Paul Macdonald wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input during
> update,
>
> i have some auto update scripts
Stop doing this.
Your update scripts do not read /usr/ports/UPDATING.
Your update scripts do not read package changelogs.
Hi,
Is there a way to tell which ports might require dialog input during update,
i have some auto update scripts which when prompted will run through
updates, but occassionally i forget which will require user input and
this leads to dialog running ( often @ 100%) until i notice.
Obviously
14 matches
Mail list logo