From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 31 22:40:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD08216A4CE; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:40:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from blues.jpj.net (blues.jpj.net [208.210.80.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D6D43D2F; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:40:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from blues.jpj.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blues.jpj.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBVMeCJa028816; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:40:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost)iBVMeCEK028813; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:40:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: blues.jpj.net: trevor owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:40:12 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson To: "David O'Brien" In-Reply-To: <20041231215411.GB14893@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: <20041231170638.L12851@blues.jpj.net> References: <200412302001.iBUK10iV036621@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041231142144.G12851@blues.jpj.net> <20041231215411.GB14893@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage1 Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:40:13 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:52:40PM -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote: > > It wasn't missed, but intentional. Those files are not precious--they > > weren't compiled (by the port), just untarred. Unlike most ports, this > > port doesn't do anything with them except make the packing list. In my > > judgment, it's better to remove them afterward, so someone who simply does > > "make install" will need half as much disk space. > > ?? That is true of 100 other ports -- they extract binary files. There are only a few that do this purely to get a listing of the files. Previously, this port just did a "tar tyf" to generate the list of the files, and you didn't propose that it should actually untar the files, just in case the user wanted to look at one. Why has it become important now? > what about the 10,000 ports -- boy do they use a lot of disk space after > 'make install' and before 'make clean'. What should we do about them?? You seem confused--the files we're discussing aren't needed for "make install" to proceed. As I said, all the port does with them is get a listing of the filenames so it can make the packing list. During the installation, the port extracts directly from the distfile, a second time. Other ports typically extract from the distfile, sometimes run the configure script therein, compile stuff by invoking a makefile from upstream, and then invoke that makefile again when they install. Because it's only aspiring to stage 1, this port does not do any of that. If we were talking about stage 2 or 3, yes, there would be precious files that should only be cleaned up at the user's explicit request. -- Trevor Johnson