From owner-cvs-ports  Mon Mar 10 02:11:02 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA08484
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA08479;
          Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id EAA10991; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 04:10:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from sjx-ca21-21.ix.netcom.com(204.30.65.85) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma010989; Mon Mar 10 04:09:59 1997
Received: (from asami@localhost) by baloon.mimi.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id CAA00925; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703101009.CAA00925@baloon.mimi.com>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: tg@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <12063.857722347@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/bsvc Makefile
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * >   ${RM} -> ${RM} -f.
 * 
 * That was reason #1. :-)

Sorry, that was an oversight in my part.

 * My other feeling was that generating a temporary patch actually *in*
 * the patches directory was kind of evil, and if I had to do it I'd
 * simply generate the patch under ${WRKDIR} and add a post-patch target
 * for it rather than a pre-clean target.  Maybe I'm just being
 * anal-retentive, but it would make more sense given the presence of the
 * pre-patch rule. :-)

Actually, I'd do it that way myself too, if I'm the porter.  But the
port came in the other way, and we have several precedences of
allowing temporary patchfiles in the patches/ directory, and I didn't
feel strongly enough to change that.

By the way, my next project (after the release is out, obviously) is
to make the /usr/ports tree "read-only" as far as ports building is
concerned, much the same way /usr/src is.  That would obviouly
disallow things like this from happening again.

Satoshi