From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Apr 26 16:52:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DE537B41B for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920) id C650CAE1FC; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:52:47 -0700 From: Maxime Henrion To: ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Edwin Groothuis Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR} Message-ID: <20020426235247.GD42922@elvis.mu.org> 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> <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i 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 Edwin Groothuis wrote: > 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. And what I meant to say is that they should *not* be the same. I don't think a "make clean" in /usr/ports/archivers or whatever category should default to NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes since it breaks POLA and it may not be the right thing to do. The /usr/ports case is different since you achieve the same results, it just takes less time. > 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. Uh ? In what way ? The only case that my patch would broke that I am able to imagine is if there was some port in /usr/ports depending on another port not itself in this tree but elsewhere, which is *very* unlikely. Maxime To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message