[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/05/21]
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Peter da Silva wrote: > Have you looked at doing "make package" instead of "make install"? Yeah, but that sucks just as much for my purposes. I have a package name, something like "openssh"; on any other platform, just that name is enough to do just about everything I need, and basically every operation is a single step, although sometimes I need to specify a file to operate on (e.g., Sun boxes require a source for the package). For FreeBSD, I have to convert that package name to a port name, and then I have to cd into the stupid port directory and then I have to run "make package". "make package" is not significantly better than "make install" for the purposes of automation, which is to say, introspection and interaction with the computer. Oh, and because I happen to have INTERACTIVE and UNAME set in my environment for my own use, ports don't actually work at all; took me for freaking ever to figure that one out, but it's an easy fix. > Have you looked at "portupgrade"? Yeah, and that basically works fine, once I've converted the package name to a port name, and once I know that I actually need to upgrade. That's not the hard part. Again, I'm sure this is great for people who like having their own synchronous conversations with computers. I don't work like that, and FreeBSD is easily twice as difficult as anything else out there as a result, even when I have to hunt the stupid packages down myself. Why go to all that effort to make things "easy" if it's not easy to hand off to a computer? It's stupid. -- "They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me." -- Nathaniel Lee on being consigned to a mental institution, circa 17th c. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.comThere's stuff above here
Generated at 14:00 on 27 May 2006 by mariachi 0.52