interactive ports - the plague

[Wesley Shields]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:04:57PM +0000, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:27:31 -0500
> Naram Qashat <cyberbotx at cyberbotx.com> wrote:
> 
> > RW wrote:
> > > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:21 +0100
> > > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze at bsdforen.de> 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