From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Apr 26 16:40:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from topaz.mdcc.cx (topaz.mdcc.cx [212.204.230.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D19437B41C; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from k7.mavetju.org (topaz.mdcc.cx [212.204.230.141]) by topaz.mdcc.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489962B84A; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 01:40:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k7.mavetju.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6FEC12EA; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:40:00 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:40:00 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis To: Maxime Henrion Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR} Message-ID: <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org> References: <20020424224454.GM88736@elvis.mu.org> <20020424191430.W62277-100000@zoot.corp.yahoo.com> <20020426204935.GA42922@elvis.mu.org> <3CC9D357.9010105@owt.com> <20020426224107.GB42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427090419.F56612@k7.mavetju.org> <20020426232017.GC42922@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020426232017.GC42922@elvis.mu.org>; from mux@freebsd.org on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:20:17PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:20:17PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:41:07PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > Kent Stewart wrote: > > > > I think that as long as a make will automatically install all of the > > > > b-deps and r-deps of a port the default should be what it is. If you > > > > do not clean what you have generated, people will have a shock from > > > > all of the code that suddenly appeared and caught them off guard. > > > > > > This only affects a make clean in /usr/ports. Not the rest. So > > > everything will still get cleaned. > > > > It should also affect the make clean in /usr/ports/*, if they are > > not a port-directory. > > I disagree. Doing a "make clean" in /usr/ports with or without > NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes has the same end result, it's just a lot faster with Yes I agree with it. What I meant to say is that the behaviour of "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/archivers, /usr/ports/shells should be the same (i.e. force NOCLEANDEPENDS to yes). The behaviour of "make clean" in /usr/ports/archivers/unzip is different, there it looks at the value of NOCLEANDEPENDS in /etc/make.conf. > > The find /usr/ports -name Makefile is *not* a good solution, since > > the design of the ports-layout is to modular and hierarchical[sp]. > > There even might be ports (I agree, there are none) which require > > a different behaviour on a "make clean" then a "rm -rf work". > > > > For example, if I make a port which remembers certain settings > > before a compile (i.e. postfix, or ghostview-gnu) and the next time > > the port is made I want to use the old settings (otherwise they > > should have done a "make config"). > > A "make clean" anywhere would rebuild the port with the old settings... > > A "find /usr/ports -name work | xargs rm -rf" would destroy the settings. > > I'm not sure to understand what you are talking about here but it seems > to me it's a different problem. Yes and no. Replacing "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/* (so in the ports-directories, not in a port-directory) with "find . -name work | xargs rm -rf" does break the behaviour of what the "make clean" of a specific port can have in mind. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.MavEtJu.org edwin@mavetju.org | Interested in MUDs? Visit Fatal Dimensions: bash$ :(){ :|:&};: | http://www.FatalDimensions.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message