interactive ports - the plague

Naram Qashat cyberbotx at
Mon Mar 3 16:43:34 UTC 2008

RW wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100
> Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze at> 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 at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list