Ports with GUI configs

[Garrett Cooper]

[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
>   
>> Chuck Robey wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>>    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 or behavior, which happened quite often with Gentoo.
>>    make config-all or something similar to have people fill in their
>> desired config info in all of the ncurses config sections would however
>> be a much better idea I think..
>> -Garrett
>>     
>
> Are you talking about make config-recursive?
>   
Yes =\. Lemme guess.. that's already an option :)?