Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>