Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 08:55:33 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz <scott@statsci.com> To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Cc: jfieber@indiana.edu, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should this port go in ? Message-ID: <m0uwsOT-000JS6C@main.statsci.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:57:32 -0700." <199608310157.SAA19946@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199608310157.SAA19946@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) wrote:
> * The idea I had was to modify install to (optionally) log
> * installations. The logging could be controlled either through
>
> This is a really cool idea. But install is not the only program that
> is used, there is cp (I know this is wrong), touch, tar, and maybe
> cpio. And the whole directory copies that use tar/cpio is the ones
> that are most hard to keep track of.
Would it make sense to put a directory at the front of $PATH just for ports
that has a collection of wrapper scripts? Then maybe you could stick a 'tar'
script in there that figures out what's going on and does an extra 'tar t' to
get the filenames?
Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div)
1700 Westlake Ave N #500
scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109
Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0uwsOT-000JS6C>