Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:18:16 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> Cc: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: post-deinstall target is invalid Message-ID: <20120330131816.GB30070@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20120329204016.GT82505@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> References: <20120329184921.GA2021@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <4F74BC4F.70801@FreeBSD.org> <20120329204016.GT82505@dormouse.experts-exchange.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:47:27PM +0200, Gabor Kovesdan thus spake: > >On 2012.03.29. 20:49, Jason Helfman wrote: > >> I will work on a effort, as well, to get some supporting documentation > >> into > >> the Porter's Handbook. > >Jason, thanks for this cleanup work. Have you checked if there is any > >portlint check for this? It would also be very valuable. > > > >Gabor > > > Your welcome, and thanks. > > I did consider it, however it was also noted to me that portlint shouldn't > take the place of poor port coding. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but > I also tend to agree with this. Perhaps adding logic to bpm would be a good > way to wrap it up, as well. I'm not sure we should add anything to bpm. It's a legitimate name of a custom target which maintainers can use if they want. We should be vigilant of code which assumes it will be called though, but there's nothing wrong with it being a custom target that the maintainer wants for one reason or another. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120330131816.GB30070>