On Saturday 17 November 2007 02:06, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:57PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
prominently display the actual meaning of the word being set. The only
reason to make the list binary is to force everyone to use the
(basically database technology) tool to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:58:35 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ed to take exception to that. My claim (and I have the messages
in which I made it) is that the setting of options needed these
changes:
(1) To move the time that they need to be set, from ports compile
time to system
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:56:12PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 03:34:26PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:23:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
This makes a little file of descriptor words, but it's not set so a
Chad Perrin wrote:
I personally felt we'd sufficiently discussed this to death, but now
there's 2 different folks who want to tear it apart some more. If
you're bored of this, tell me, and I will drag these folks either into
private discussions, or maybe onto the ports list. Tell me if
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:57PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
prominently display the actual meaning of the word being set. The only
reason to make the list binary is to force everyone to use the
(basically database technology) tool to manipulate the keywords, thus
stopping folks from
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing.
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years).
Introducing that type of complexity into a ports system isn't necessary
and does unexpected things at times for
Chuck Robey wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:23:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
This makes a little file of descriptor words, but it's not set so a
regular editor can manipulate it; the special ports program is needed to
set or reset this list. All ports query this list in making the
RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:55:02 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you seriously saying that a decision regarding what ports are to
be installed should be made after they are installed? If you have
10,000 ports installed, you obviously have no need whatever to make
any
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Upgrading has no bearing whatever on this. Why do you bring that up?
We're talking about a suggested shell script that calls config-recursive for
outdated ports. I did not bring that up.
I'm out of this. It's a bikeshed after all.
OK, I can agree with that. I let my
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:55:02 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you seriously saying that a decision regarding what ports are to
be installed should be made after they are installed? If you have
10,000 ports installed, you obviously have no need whatever to make
any decision at
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:55 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already deleted the message that kicked me off, but it looked to
me that you were talking about the 10,000 ports I was talking about,
and that meant you were referring to new installs, not upgrades.
Why would
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 03:34:26PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:23:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
This makes a little file of descriptor words, but it's not set so a
regular editor can manipulate it; the special ports program is needed to
set or
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:43:16PM +, RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:55 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already deleted the message that kicked me off, but it looked to
me that you were talking about the 10,000 ports I was talking about,
and that meant you were
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:15:56PM +, RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:04:07 -0700
Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:43:16PM +, RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:55 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already deleted the
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:04:07 -0700
Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:43:16PM +, RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:55 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already deleted the message that kicked me off, but it
looked to me that you
RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:55 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already deleted the message that kicked me off, but it looked to
me that you were talking about the 10,000 ports I was talking about,
and that meant you were referring to new installs, not upgrades.
Why
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 03:34:26PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:23:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
This makes a little file of descriptor words, but it's not set so a
regular editor can manipulate it; the special ports program is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:23:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
This makes a little file of descriptor words, but it's not set so a
regular editor can manipulate it; the special ports program is needed to
set or reset this list. All ports query this list in making the
decision as to whether
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:26:00PM +, Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI configuration
for some ports?
Many people prefer to not have to read every single Makefile in the ports
tree just to find out which options are available.
It can
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the wall.
I've lost count of the number of times I've come back to a big install
to find it hanging on a config screen. Possibly I'm missing
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the wall.
I've lost count of the number of times I've come back to a big install
to find it hanging on a config screen. Possibly
On Monday 12 November 2007 17:48, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:26:00PM +, Ashley Moran wrote:
I've lost count of the number of times I've come back to a big
install to find it hanging on a config screen. Possibly I'm missing
something.
[snip]
What is the best way to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the
wall. I've lost count of the number of times
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the
wall. I've lost
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the
wall. I've lost count of the number of
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up the
wall. I've lost count of
Garrett Cooper wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some ports? Simply put, they drive me up
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:04:12 +0200
Manolis Kiagias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Setting the menus is pretty easy to script, and you can also set
BATCH to take the default options
And in fact you can make all these screens appear before
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:18:50 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Setting the menus is pretty easy to script, and you can also set
BATCH to take the default options
A suggestion I recently made on the ports list would, as a side
effect, make a better solution.
I don't see why it
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
Mark D. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vince wrote:
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the
Garrett Cooper wrote:
If you want to see what it is, go look at recent postings on ports
list. It'll probably get changed, as I get something for folks to
look at and discuss.
USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years).
Introducing that type of complexity into a
Garrett Cooper wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years).
Introducing that type of complexity into a ports system isn't necessary
and does unexpected things at times for end-users when developers change
variable names
On November 12, 2007 at 03:14PM RW wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes, but that doesn't work if you are doing a portupgrade -a, you then
need to wrap the makes in a simple script, which is what I was referring
to. Portmaster has something like this built-in.
From man PORTUPGRADE(1):
-- batchRun an
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either requires
someone to be chained to the computer, so as to intercept all those
screens, or to simply
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either requires
someone to be chained to the computer, so as to intercept all those
screens,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:25:47 -0500
Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On November 12, 2007 at 03:14PM RW wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes, but that doesn't work if you are doing a portupgrade -a, you
then need to wrap the makes in a simple script, which is what I was
referring to. Portmaster has
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either
Gerard wrote:
On November 12, 2007 at 03:14PM RW wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes, but that doesn't work if you are doing a portupgrade -a, you then
need to wrap the makes in a simple script, which is what I was referring
to. Portmaster has something like this built-in.
From man PORTUPGRADE(1):
and my
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either requires
someone to be chained to the computer, so as to intercept all those
screens, or
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build ports in batch either
Not to mention, as a novice, I've discovered that for 20-60% of all
ports, messing with the defaults makes the port fail to build
Steve
On Nov 12, 2007 8:26 AM, Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I was just wondering, what is the motivation behind the GUI
configuration for some
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:37:11 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not hard to script it though, something like the following
would do
#!/bin/sh
for p in `pkg_version -ol'' |awk '{ print $1
Chuck Robey wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
USE flags are a pain in the ass (former Gentoo user of 3 years).
Introducing that type of complexity into a ports system isn't necessary
and does unexpected things at times for end-users when developers
Steve Franks wrote:
Not to mention, as a novice, I've discovered that for 20-60% of all
ports, messing with the defaults makes the port fail to build
Steve
This sounds rather unlikely if you use the provided WITH_* flags. In case you
do something else with ports - well it's not meant to
Chuck Robey wrote:
RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
Tino Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope not. We really need to move this out of being a ports
buildtime thing. Currently, to build
47 matches
Mail list logo
