Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:32:59 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: dirrmtry: shared directories and can, should or must use Message-ID: <20060306223259.3f2c6253@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <61474466@srv.sem.ipt.ru> References: <61474466@srv.sem.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:40:45 +0300 Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote: > Hi! > > > At The Porters Handbook 7.2.1 Cleaning up empty directories we read > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/plist-cleaning.html#PLIST-DIR-CLEANING > > "However, sometimes @dirrm will give you errors because other ports > share the same directory. You can use @dirrmtry to remove only empty > directories without warning." > > I don't quite understand the term "can" here. Is it supposed may, > should or must use @dirrmtry? Should. > And what about non-empty but shared directories? May, should or must > we use @dirrmtry? Should. From what I understand from your phrasing all 3 sentences are equivalent. The idea is that different ports install files in the same directories (that are not part of mtree). The ONLY reason to use @dirrmtry is to avoid "Unable to completely delete dir/x " type of warnings from pkg-delete. Of course, using @dirrmtry instead of properly removing own installed files is wrong. > Is this command supposed to work only when building packages > (i.e. at pointyhat) or is it intended to be useful at other > servers/workstations (i.e. not to disturb administrators when > upgrading their systems)? In all cases, when either pkg-delete or make deinstall are used. -- IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #258: That's easy to fix, but I can't be bothered
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060306223259.3f2c6253>