Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. Not if you do the config screens before setting BATCH. Thanks for the suggestion. The lines: .if !make(config*) BATCH= yes .endif in my make.conf works well with portmaster. The config screens appear but ghostscript remains silent. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
-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 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 that particular license type once and for all. The purpose of this pkgsrc's mechanism is to segregate pieces of software that use various licences so that users have a better legal / / philosophical control over what is installed on their systems. This doesn't change anything if you have to go to the vendor's site, log in and accept the licence manually. The downside is that this requires a considerable amount of work and thought. What should happen when the license changes, for instance. Then port (or package, in pkgsrc terminology) maintainer changes the appropriate line in package's Makefile. If the license in question is a new one, its text is being added to the pkgsrc tree. (BTW, are/were there ideas of implementing something similar in Ports Collection?) - -- Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBR866xfzDP9K2CKGYAQORFwQAlWCXRRw7GgpydxvDtUPukhU+WkTQc+Xo FrypqJ90d6Pwip6D+jKWBqVnhQw65EJ6JmkLeYmkQnCe98/m9T7p0G20BofRHPcY rr2tgHbx3Dx29gpaXS2eNeQfuQOksnybvIbJAPW/pF9XpEzXFyzfjFjR6MD1gyF7 cLbayMeaPJ8= =mRjd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 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 ACCEPT_LICENSE_FOO=Yes is found in make.conf, then the user has read and accepted that particular license type once and for all. The purpose of this pkgsrc's mechanism is to segregate pieces of software that use various licences so that users have a better legal / / philosophical control over what is installed on their systems. This doesn't change anything if you have to go to the vendor's site, log in and accept the licence manually. The downside is that this requires a considerable amount of work and thought. What should happen when the license changes, for instance. Then port (or package, in pkgsrc terminology) maintainer changes the appropriate line in package's Makefile. If the license in question is a new one, its text is being added to the pkgsrc tree. (BTW, are/were there ideas of implementing something similar in Ports Collection?) I know there is a wiki page keeping track of ports which use GPL3 (not sure why, I have not kept up on what GPL3 means). If the reason for having this page is important enough - that is, more than curiosity - then some kind of analogous mechanism to what you describe may be a good idea. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 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 ACCEPT_LICENSE_FOO=Yes is found in make.conf, then the user has read and accepted that particular license type once and for all. The purpose of this pkgsrc's mechanism is to segregate pieces of software that use various licences so that users have a better legal / / philosophical control over what is installed on their systems. This doesn't change anything if you have to go to the vendor's site, log in and accept the licence manually. The downside is that this requires a considerable amount of work and thought. What should happen when the license changes, for instance. Then port (or package, in pkgsrc terminology) maintainer changes the appropriate line in package's Makefile. If the license in question is a new one, its text is being added to the pkgsrc tree. (BTW, are/were there ideas of implementing something similar in Ports Collection?) I know there is a wiki page keeping track of ports which use GPL3 (not sure why, I have not kept up on what GPL3 means). If the reason for having this page is important enough - that is, more than curiosity - then some kind of analogous mechanism to what you describe may be a good idea. 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 research into this so don't take my word for it. I'm not sure how this is enforced other than asking maintainers to pay close attention to their ports and marking them as NO_PACKAGE accordingly. Maybe requiring explicit license information in the Makefile will have the added benefit of forcing maintainers to look at the license. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
-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 research into this so don't take my word for it. (Yes, among other things. For example, that's why Claws-Mail recently cancelled ClamAV support and caused a lot of problems for some people...) I'm not sure how this is enforced other than asking maintainers to pay close attention to their ports and marking them as NO_PACKAGE accordingly. Maybe requiring explicit license information in the Makefile will have the added benefit of forcing maintainers to look at the license. Here: http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/fixes.html#handling-licenses IMHO the way pkgsrc people implemented it is both elegant and great. Maintainers are forced to pay particular attention to the licencing and to discuss it on the list if something's unclear. This means that some licences automatically imply something like NO_PACKAGE -- and this means that Ports Management has a better overview and control over this sensitive matter (just remember recent ion case). As explained here: (For those who want to take a look and to save some time, you download the current pkgsrc branch like this: setenv CVSROOT [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot setenv CVS_RSH ssh cvs -q checkout -P pkgsrc See pkgsrc/licenses.) - -- Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBR87QS/zDP9K2CKGYAQNRJgP8Dt5PNkS3xLyddUVTdbkUmq06b7sOfN7z P+UqQppsloWd+qOoLoFaLeluDMq9Cih7bIB1NvHj036XfsTbtHWaMMGr/TVFNihc rwzOryUR8fX8FsQzXlFC5hl0PCLr7T6DJxsY9cJTqlohrvuUOUnDLJiaziLWXs5X pGXre8MofqQ= =6qsm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 you've put in a great deal of work on it. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
Beech Rintoul-5 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? Sorry, having that port just fail seems to be the right thing to do. FWIW, it doesn't hang up portupgrade. Well does it help when you are attempting openoffice.org and the failure of the jdk ports leads to the entire build of the final package itself being called off, thus effectively canceling the night's build anyway. Personally I would like to see all licenses and configuration 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-tp15800371p15833478.html Sent from the freebsd-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 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 ACCEPT_LICENSE_FOO=Yes is found in make.conf, then the user has read and accepted that particular license type once and for all. The downside is that this requires a considerable amount of work and thought. What should happen when the license changes, for instance. On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [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: interactive ports - the plague
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 that particular license type once and for all. How does this handle click-through agreements where you have to tick a box to agree to the license before the vendor will release the source code? And Sun requires you to login as well. The downside is that this requires a considerable amount of work and thought. What should happen when the license changes, for instance. If a vendor has gone to the effort of implementing a click-through license and the FreeBSD Project implements a tool to bypass it then I would expect that the vendor would become somewhat annoyed. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpZhgjaodqIk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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. They are the reason one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that doesn't even remember what I choose last time. I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default option? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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. They are the reason one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that doesn't even remember what I choose last time. I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default option? 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. Naram Qashat ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [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: interactive ports - the plague
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. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 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]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
Naram Qashat wrote: 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. With me 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. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 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. tripwire is marked as interactive, so it wont build. I'm not sure about postfix. does it prompt on upgrades too? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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. They are the reason one wakes up in the morning and finds out that instead of having finished all updates, the machine hasn't even started updating, because it's just hanging there, waiting with a config dialogue that doesn't even remember what I choose last time. I cannot find any policy on interactive ports in the Porters' Handbook. Maybe there aught to be one. Setting BATCH is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. In my experience ghostscript-gpl will build with default options if you set BATCH, or are you saying that you need a specific non-default option? I'd prefer the port to use the ports config framework. In that case I'd even bother to go through the list of drivers and make choices. At the moment I just select OK, because what I choose won't be remembered the next time anyway. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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, 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. tripwire is marked as interactive, so it wont build. I'm not sure about postfix. does it prompt on upgrades too? Yes. Have a look at pkg-install. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 I'm not sure which way it should default, on BATCH. And does BATCH apply to package install as well? Honestly, I have not put much thought into it. I was just pointing out that some ports require post-installation questions to be answered. Thanks for your work on postfix, it's always just worked for me. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 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. Another case is print/xdvi: it asks for a font directory. Unless you specify one it hangs there forever waiting for input. However, it didn't bother me enough yet to fix this... ;-) Regards, Philipp ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 well? I think the usual way is to mention in pkg-message what aught to be done instead of offering to do it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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? -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 your suggestion? Sorry, having that port just fail seems to be the right thing to do. FWIW, it doesn't hang up portupgrade. -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 that as a bug report :-) I didn't intend for that to be a bug report. :) It happened to me to start a largish portupgrade and find it stuck on that particular thingy. I think it doesn't prompt it for package building. What about making it an OPTION ? On first install you need to configure postfix so it shouldn't be on by default (personally it's the fifth or so port I install ...), but on portupgrades everything will work. Though I'm not sure which way it should default, on BATCH. And does BATCH apply to package install as well? Honestly, I have not put much thought into it. I was just pointing out that some ports require post-installation questions to be answered. Thanks for your work on postfix, it's always just worked for me. Indeed! From the ports I use I consider it to be one of the best maintained. Many thanks. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD user Intellectual Property is nowhere near as valuable as Intellect signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 default, on BATCH. And does BATCH apply to package install as well? Looking at the script it seems to be implemented already. It goes with defaults in package building or BATCH is set. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. Not if you do the config screens before setting BATCH. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interactive ports - the plague
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 is supposed to prevent genuinely interactive ports from building (that's actually the original purpose of BATCH). But this will also keep the config screens away from me, which can be handled before all builds quite comfortably. Not if you do the config screens before setting BATCH. True, I suppose my make.conf will get a couple of new .if blocks. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
