Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 11:43:37 BST From: Michael Searle <searle@longacre.demon.co.uk> To: questions@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports suggestion Message-ID: <mEAF73AAF@longacre.demon.co.uk> References: <199607090030.RAA04449@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
owner-questions-digest@freefall.freebsd.org wrote: > Gary Chrysler wrote in message ID <31E191F8.20CD@ime.net>: >> Aye, I kinda like that, Although not many of the ports I have added >> have the packing list. (As you called it) > They are ALL meant to have them, as that is how the packages are built > ... if they just have subdirectories in them (which some do, and is a > bit of a cheat), then they should be fixed to have complete packing > lists ... otherwise you cannot pkg_delete them :-( I think this is is a problem with the pkg_delete (it is doing rm, not rm -r), not a cheat - there are some ports with _hundreds_ of files, often in a single directory /usr/local/lib/fatport. Unless there is some reason why it is like this? The only reason I can see is mistakes in the PLIST being more likely to do bad things, but using the cwd should prevent this (the absolute worst that could happen is nuking /usr/local and having to reinstall all the packages from the CD.) -- Michael Searle - searle@longacre.demon.co.uk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?mEAF73AAF>