Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:40:00 +1000
From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>
To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR}
Message-ID: <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020426232017.GC42922@elvis.mu.org>; from mux@freebsd.org on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:20:17PM -0700
References: <20020424224454.GM88736@elvis.mu.org> <20020424191430.W62277-100000@zoot.corp.yahoo.com> <20020426204935.GA42922@elvis.mu.org> <3CC9D357.9010105@owt.com> <20020426224107.GB42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427090419.F56612@k7.mavetju.org> <20020426232017.GC42922@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:20:17PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:41:07PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > Kent Stewart wrote: > > > > I think that as long as a make will automatically install all of the > > > > b-deps and r-deps of a port the default should be what it is. If you > > > > do not clean what you have generated, people will have a shock from > > > > all of the code that suddenly appeared and caught them off guard. > > > > > > This only affects a make clean in /usr/ports. Not the rest. So > > > everything will still get cleaned. > > > > It should also affect the make clean in /usr/ports/*, if they are > > not a port-directory. > > I disagree. Doing a "make clean" in /usr/ports with or without > NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes has the same end result, it's just a lot faster with Yes I agree with it. What I meant to say is that the behaviour of "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/archivers, /usr/ports/shells should be the same (i.e. force NOCLEANDEPENDS to yes). The behaviour of "make clean" in /usr/ports/archivers/unzip is different, there it looks at the value of NOCLEANDEPENDS in /etc/make.conf. > > The find /usr/ports -name Makefile is *not* a good solution, since > > the design of the ports-layout is to modular and hierarchical[sp]. > > There even might be ports (I agree, there are none) which require > > a different behaviour on a "make clean" then a "rm -rf work". > > > > For example, if I make a port which remembers certain settings > > before a compile (i.e. postfix, or ghostview-gnu) and the next time > > the port is made I want to use the old settings (otherwise they > > should have done a "make config"). > > A "make clean" anywhere would rebuild the port with the old settings... > > A "find /usr/ports -name work | xargs rm -rf" would destroy the settings. > > I'm not sure to understand what you are talking about here but it seems > to me it's a different problem. Yes and no. Replacing "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/* (so in the ports-directories, not in a port-directory) with "find . -name work | xargs rm -rf" does break the behaviour of what the "make clean" of a specific port can have in mind. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.MavEtJu.org edwin@mavetju.org | Interested in MUDs? Visit Fatal Dimensions: bash$ :(){ :|:&};: | http://www.FatalDimensions.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020427094000.H56612>