From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 30 13:18:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F63B106564A; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:18:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.49.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6B08FC14; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:18:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 91FFC5C3A; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:18:16 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Jason Helfman Message-ID: <20120330131816.GB30070@atarininja.org> References: <20120329184921.GA2021@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <4F74BC4F.70801@FreeBSD.org> <20120329204016.GT82505@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120329204016.GT82505@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Gabor Kovesdan , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: post-deinstall target is invalid X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:18:17 -0000 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