From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Apr 26 17:28:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95D937B423 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920) id BBF58AE2AB; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:28:14 -0700 From: Maxime Henrion To: ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Edwin Groothuis Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR} Message-ID: <20020427002814.GE42922@elvis.mu.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> <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org> <20020426235247.GD42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427101938.A77837@k7.mavetju.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020427101938.A77837@k7.mavetju.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i 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 Edwin Groothuis wrote: > The expected behaviour of a "make clean" in a port-directory (i.e. > /usr/ports/archivers/unzip) is to clean after the compilation/installation > of that port. Ports have dependencies, so the directories of the > dependency-ports also have to be cleaned (for the just-in-case > scenario where one or more dependencies had to be build also) > > The expected behaviour of a "make clean" in a ports-directory (i.e. > /usr/ports or /usr/ports/archivers) is to clean the directories > below it. A ports-directory can have a port-directory below it, in > which case that one has to be cleaned, or another ports-directory, > in which case it should dive into that and do a "make clean" there > too. I don't actually disagree with this, but I would like NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes to be the default for /usr/ports first, because this case has less impact and annoys a lot of people. The rest can be discussed after. > > Uh ? In what way ? The only case that my patch would broke that I am > > able to imagine is if there was some port in /usr/ports depending on > > another port not itself in this tree but elsewhere, which is *very* > > unlikely. > > It will break if the port itself has a clean-target. Not all of > them, actually probably close to "none of them" has it, but they > have the capability to have one and that is something which should > be reserved. That's right. I think it's a good thing if my patch breaks something which a port shouldn't do anyway, though. :-) Maxime To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message