RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters'
Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one.
Setting BATCH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:35:29 +0100
Jesper Louis Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure it would solve the particular problem, but one could
take a look at how NetBSDs pkgsrc build system copes with licenses in
general:
For each
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Nikola Le??i?? wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:35:29 +0100
Jesper Louis Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure it would solve the particular problem, but one could
take a look at how
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:30:44AM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Nikola Le??i?? wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:35:29 +0100
Jesper Louis Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:37:38 -0500
Wesley Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just informed that a port which is gpl2 _only_ can not be built
into a package if it depends on a port which is gpl3. However, IANAL
and have not done any
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Nikola Lečić wrote:
(BTW, are/were there ideas of implementing something similar in Ports
Collection?)
Yes, I think we are at the point of needing to implement this. I hope
we can use what pkgsrc has (the concepts if not the code); it sounds as
though
options
resolved at the start of portupgrade (so they are all done in one go) and
then followed by the compilation and downloads, that way nothing gets
canceled or stalled unless there is a genuine problem
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/interactive-ports---the-plague
I am not sure it would solve the particular problem, but one could take a
look at how NetBSDs pkgsrc
build system copes with licenses in general:
For each license type, there is a knob. The knob could normally be
interactive, yielding the exact
same behaviour as now. But if an appropriate
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 07:35:29PM +0100, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:
For each license type, there is a knob. The knob could normally be
interactive, yielding the exact same behaviour as now. But if an
appropriate ACCEPT_LICENSE_FOO=Yes is found in make.conf, then the
user has read and accepted
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. They
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
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
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
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +, 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
the JDK ports stop and demand I manually download the files, which
is even more irritating
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/interactive-ports---the-plague-tp15800371p15808613.html
Sent from the freebsd-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:27:50 -0500
Wesley Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +, RW wrote:
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
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
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:36:57PM +, RW wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:27:50 -0500
Wesley Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +, RW wrote:
IIRC these ports refuse to fetch the distfiles, and ask you to
fetch them manually from the websites,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:12:37AM -0800, pjd wrote:
With me the JDK ports stop and demand I manually download the files, which
is even more irritating
Given Sun's licensing requirements, what is your suggestion?
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in
/etc/mail/mailer.conf.
I'll take that as a bug report :-)
Though I'm not sure which way it should default, on BATCH. And does
BATCH apply to package install as well?
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:01:00PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in
/etc/mail/mailer.conf.
I'll take that as a bug report :-)
I didn't intend for that to be a bug report. :)
Though
Wesley Shields wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +, 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
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in
/etc/mail/mailer.conf.
I'll take that as a bug report :-)
Though I'm not sure which way it should default, on BATCH. And does
BATCH apply to package install as
On Monday 03 March 2008, Mark Linimon said:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:12:37AM -0800, pjd wrote:
With me the JDK ports stop and demand I manually download the
files, which is even more irritating
Given Sun's licensing requirements, what is your suggestion?
--
On Monday 03 March 2008, Beech Rintoul said:
On Monday 03 March 2008, Mark Linimon said:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:12:37AM -0800, pjd wrote:
With me the JDK ports stop and demand I manually download the
files, which is even more irritating
Given Sun's licensing requirements, what is
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:00 -0500
Wesley Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:01:00PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in
/etc/mail/mailer.conf.
I'll take
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:01:00 -0500
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
I know mail/postfix asks if it should activate itself in
/etc/mail/mailer.conf.
I'll take that as a bug report :-)
Though I'm not sure which way it should
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters'
Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one.
Setting BATCH is
RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:55:52 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100
Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters'
Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one.
Setting BATCH
29 matches
Mail list logo
