From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Jan 7 00:04:22 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F564CA3829 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:04:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rde@tavi.co.uk) Received: from kipling.tavi.co.uk (kipling.tavi.co.uk [81.187.145.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAD61FCB for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:04:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rde@tavi.co.uk) Received: from raksha.tavi.co.uk (raksha.tavi.co.uk [81.187.145.139]) by kipling.tavi.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFBB75961 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:04:19 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:04:19 +0000 From: Bob Eager To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap temporary files Message-ID: <20170107000419.50a0e25b@raksha.tavi.co.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20170106223050.0fcbed48@raksha.tavi.co.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; i386-portbld-freebsd10.3) Face: 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==== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 00:04:22 -0000 On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 10:34:39 +1100 (EST) Dave Horsfall wrote: > (Many responses) > > I note that no-one has answered the question which caused me to post > the message in the first place viz: why weren't the files being > removed automatically? Everyone appears to have missed this point... > Didn't miss the point, just didn't know the answer! (and offered a [rather poor] workaround)!