Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 03:21:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Satoshi Asami <asami@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/xv Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.960925031801.1204B-100000@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960924195736.4358B-100000@maryann.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Scott Blachowicz wrote: > > > "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > This seems like one of those religious issues, that is bound to completely > irritate everyone, no matter how you do it. Why can't we have clean, and > squeeky-clean? (No, I can't make up a better name, I'm lousy at that). I > would choose to clean thoroughly myself, usually, but it wouldn't be that > awful hard to have two clean targets, would it? That way we would stand > at least a chance of making most folks happy, and we could avoid extreme > and hard to maintain overcomplicated cleaning algorithms, that would leave > everyone confused. targets like realclean come to mind ... ;-)) Or via environment variable in make.conf as I suggested. -- andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.960925031801.1204B-100000>