From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Oct 29 17: 1:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from pelissero.org (dyn194-32.sftm-212-159.plus.net [212.159.32.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569A637B403 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wcp@localhost) by pelissero.org (8.11.6/8.9.3) id f9U10ur44124; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:00:56 GMT (envelope-from wcp) From: "Walter C. Pelissero" Message-ID: <15325.64454.496852.907929@hyde.lpds.sublink.org> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:00:54 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make clean In-Reply-To: <200110292131.f9TLVEi58066@gits.dyndns.org> References: <200110291311.f9TDBA033787@pelissero.org> <200110292131.f9TLVEi58066@gits.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: walter@pelissero.org X-Attribution: WP Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Cyrille Lefevre writes: > Walter C. Pelissero wrote: > > Wouldn't make sense if Makefile in /usr/ports directory had > > NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes set by default? > > > > I belive it would take one tenth of the time it takes now. > > why don't you just add it to your /etc/make.conf ? Maybe because other people might enjoy the same patch? Anyway, you missed the point. Making the modification in /etc/make.conf would introduce an even worse behavior: the dependency ports wouldn't be cleaned up if you do a "make clean" from within any subdirectory of /usr/ports. -- walter pelissero http://www.pelissero.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message