Ports with GUI configs

Chuck Robey chuckr at chuckr.org
Mon Nov 12 11:20:19 PST 2007

RW wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:02 -0800
> "Mark D. Foster" <mark at foster.cc> 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 I've come back to a
>>>> big install to find it hanging on a config screen.  Possibly I'm
>>>> missing something. 
>>> I agree though, I often suffer the same problem, coming back after
>>> a few hours to a build that should have finished to find its
>>> sitting on the first dependency.
>> Maybe it's been suggested before (in which case I add my vote) but a
>> timeout mechanism would solve this... give the user 10s to provide a
>> keypress else bailout and use the "default" options.
> That would involve standing-over the build for hours or days in case
> you miss a 10-second window - it's just not practical IMO.
> 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.  You see, allowing a default timer does get 
things built, but then it allows no user input to let users avoid 
installing software  that they either have no ise for, or do not want 
for other reasons.  I have enough input now, so I'm going ahead and 
coding up the Makefile mods to allow my system, but it looks somewhat 
like the Gentoo Portage "USE" flags system.  Not identical, and I am 
only proposing to use their USE flags, not the rest (I very much like 
using Makefiles as FreeBSD ports does, and wouldn't change that.)

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.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list