Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:23:14 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/java/eclipseme Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20080319112314.GA76554@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1205921932.76695.14.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200803180100.m2I10QTD070047@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080318193855.0439b197.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20080318181546.GA10903@FreeBSD.org> <1205917353.76695.0.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20080319091859.GA56200@FreeBSD.org> <1205921932.76695.14.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:18:52AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev p??e v st 19. 03. 2008 v 09:18 +0000: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:02:33AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > Alexey Dokuchaev p??e v ?t 18. 03. 2008 v 18:15 +0000: > > > > > > > Not to mention that -R should've probably be used instead or -r, and we > > > > generally try not to mute installation of files/links (as opposed to > > > > dirs). > > > > > > Since you mentioned it, I wonder, why you think it's useful to silence > > > the mkdir calls? > > > > This question was raised before several times. When I started working > > on ports back some n years, I noticed that lots of MKDIR's were muted, > > while INSTALL_FOO's were not. I thought that this is probably for the > > same reason why we do not generate a commit message for directory > > creating in CVS, just for the files. In other words, creating a > > directory normally followed by some file(s) being put in it, thus MKDIR > > itself carries less information and probably just making things overly > > noisy (yet verbose). > > Still, the mkdir call may fall, and then the failure is less obvious to > the user/porter. This is correct. As I said, there's balance to keep between noise level and verbosity (the latter is what helping us to see if something had failed). > > > To tell you the truth, I'm all hands for a policy here. If we decide > > (like we had decided with patch files naming) upon certain convention, > > whatever it'll be, I will just follow that. I'd love to see more > > consistency and order in our Ports Collection. > > Oh no more policies, please! I wonder what's wrong with coherent and sane policies? I don't expect it would be hard to come to agreement about muting/not muting mkdir's/installation statements. These things are not of the type people usually feel strongly about. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080319112314.GA76554>