From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 07:40:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A11237B401 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51C543FA3 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h56EeEUp085003 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h56EeEKJ085002; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200306061440.h56EeEKJ085002@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Mathieu Arnold Subject: Re: ports/52989: update archivers/libcomprex to 0.3.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mathieu Arnold List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:40:15 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/52989; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mathieu Arnold To: KATO Tsuguru , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/52989: update archivers/libcomprex to 0.3.3 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:37:25 +0200 +-le 06/06/2003 23:19 +0900, KATO Tsuguru =E9crivait : | Additional changes: |=20 | - Add dependency for devel/pkg-config | - Install .pc file to correct place ok | - Do not remove directories owned by dependeny ports I may be mistaken, but I've already been asked to make sure every directory was deleted, even if some depends was already deleting it, that the reason for the distinction between @dirrm and @unexec rmdir | - Fix the way of including Makefile.man What way do you think would be good ? I can remove Makefile.man and add the man back into Makefile, but, well, I guessed that if it was done this way first, I should leave it this way. --=20 Mathieu Arnold