Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 03:20:30 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi Asami) Cc: andreas@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/xv Makefile Message-ID: <4911.843560430@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Sep 1996 01:59:01 PDT." <199609240859.BAA18585@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, I wouldn't call that a "bug" though. The problem here is that > we don't really know if the dependency was built just for this port or > not. Well yes, clearly, but the question is still whether or not it makes more sense to "clean inappropriately" or fail to clean appropriately. Given that there's generally little reason for a work directory to remain around after you're done with a port if you're using the system normally (and even if you're working on a custom port you should be doing it elsewhere than in /usr/ports), I'd say we should err on the side of disk space savings. > For instance, if someone is trying to fix a bug in the jpeg port, and > a "make clean" in xv deletes jpeg's work directory with all his > patches and stuff, we'll have one very unhappy hacker. ;) See above - it's too easy to blow yourself away by doing this anyway, and hackers should be encouraged to fix their jpeg ports outside the mainline. > I can change bsd.port.mk to keep the list of ports actually built > because of dependencies, but is this really worth it? Naw, I'd say just chain the clean. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4911.843560430>