Ports with GUI configs

[[LoN]Kamikaze]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>> Chuck Robey wrote:
>>> RW wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:54:33 +0100
>>>> Tino Engel <elrap at web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RW schrieb:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:10:29 -0500
>>>>>> Chuck Robey <chuckr at chuckr.org> 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 agree to install everything, with
>>>>>>> no inpput whatever.     
>>>>>> That's not correct, you can run make config-conditional or  make
>>>>>> config-recursive anytime you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>> But not on a portupgrade... I don't want to run config-recursive on
>>>>> the whole ports tree though....
>>>> It's not hard to script it though, something like the following
>>>> would do
>>>>
>>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>> for p in `pkg_version -ol'<' |awk '{ print $1 }'`; do
>>>>  cd  /usr/ports/${p} && make config-recursive done
>>> I can't believe you actually suggested this.  First thing, it would take
>>> you HOURS to complete, and you better not make even one mistake, 'cause
>>> you couldn't even go back far enough to figure out what the name was of
>>> the port you muffed.  Beyond that, since most ports ask questions formed
>>> with the name of the target dependency, aznd not asking things like "do
>>> you want such-and-such capability", so you have to be conversant with
>>> the names and capabilities of nearly 10,000 ports, to be able to do that
>>> job.
>>
>> It will only operate on 10000 ports if you have 10000 ports installed
>> and a
>> majority of them is outdated.
> 
> 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 all.   Whether or not they are outdated is utterly
> irrelevant, because if they're installed, it may be inferred that you
> wanted them.  It's the decision whether to install them or not that
> we're talking about.
> 
> 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outdated ports.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.