Re: always-interactive ports
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:48:10PM +0100, Julian Stacey wrote: > > Doing this could make fBSD liable which we certainly don't want. > > FUD, IMO :-) Where you live, you have the German legal system. Where I live, I have the US legal system. Remember, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you." mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:47:13PM +, RW wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:55:55 +0200 > Andriy Gapon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > > acceptance. > > > > If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. > > > > One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. > > From man ports: > > INTERACTIVE If defined, only operate on a port if it requires > interaction. > > BATCH If defined, only operate on a port if it can be > installed 100% automatically. That's from the building user's point of view. The easiest way to handle this in the port itself is to set IS_INTERACTIVE=yes in the port's Makefile, as documented in bsd.port.mk. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 If wishes were fishes, the antecedent of this conditional would be true. pgpSo2cWoVW39.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: always-interactive ports
on 24/11/2008 15:49 Erik Trulsson said the following:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:55:55PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports
>> that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity
>> options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license
>> acceptance.
>>
>> If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one.
>>
>> One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch.
>
>>From /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.ports.mk :
>
> # IS_INTERACTIVE
> # - Set this if your port needs to interact with the user
> # during any step in a package build. User can then decide
> # to skip this port by setting ${BATCH}, or compiling only
> # the interactive ports by setting ${INTERACTIVE}.
> # Default: not set.
>
>
Thanks a lot!
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
Andrew D wrote: > Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > > acceptance. > > > > You will probably find this is for legal reasons. > > > If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. > > > > One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. > > > > Doing this could make fBSD liable which we certainly don't want. FUD, IMO :-) Err to save anyone asking: Fear Uncertainty & Doubt In My Opinion. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSDUnixLinux C Prog Admin SysEng Consult Munich www.berklix.com Mail plain ASCII text. HTML & Base64 text are spam. www.asciiribbon.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:55:55PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports
> that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity
> options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license
> acceptance.
>
> If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one.
>
> One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch.
>From /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.ports.mk :
# IS_INTERACTIVE
# - Set this if your port needs to interact with the user
# during any step in a package build. User can then decide
# to skip this port by setting ${BATCH}, or compiling only
# the interactive ports by setting ${INTERACTIVE}.
# Default: not set.
--
Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:55:55 +0200 Andriy Gapon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > acceptance. > > If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. > > One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. From man ports: INTERACTIVE If defined, only operate on a port if it requires interaction. BATCH If defined, only operate on a port if it can be installed 100% automatically. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
on 24/11/2008 14:13 Andrew D said the following: > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports >> that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity >> options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license >> acceptance. >> > > You will probably find this is for legal reasons. > >> If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. >> >> One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. >> > > Doing this could make fBSD liable which we certainly don't want. > I think that you did misunderstand what I asked and suggested. I am speaking about skipping the ports not the prompts. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: always-interactive ports
Andriy Gapon wrote: I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license acceptance. You will probably find this is for legal reasons. If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. Doing this could make fBSD liable which we certainly don't want. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
always-interactive ports
I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license acceptance. If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. One use, for instance, is to skip such ports for portupgrade --batch. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
