Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Please review and test: new bsd.port.mk [OLD OLD OLD!] Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980203212544.15564B-100000@james.hwcn.org> In-Reply-To: <199802030809.AAA23482@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> Well, I for one would be mighty upset if I type "make distclean" in
> /usr/ports/net/tclplugin and lose the netscape tarball.... ;)
That sounds like a good reason. :)
> * As it is, I think it's somewhat
> * confusing that distclean uses "chained dependency cleaning", but
> * is not itself chained.
>
> Good point. I always thought "distclean" calling "clean" is sort of
> unclean. (Pardon the pun.) Can we perhaps disassociate distclean and
> clean?
That might be good. I can see the purpose of a recursive
"distclean", too. The two ("distclean" and "clean") could be
disassociated, and a variable could be added,
"DODISTCLEANDEPENDS" (ugh! better name, please!). OTOH, is there
enough demand for dependency-recurse distcleaning?
--
Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never!
tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980203212544.15564B-100000>