Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:23:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@freebsd.org> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, andreas@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/xv Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.960924121230.780F-100000@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <199609240859.BAA18585@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Satoshi Asami wrote: > Well, I wouldn't call that a "bug" though. The problem here is that > we don't really know if the dependency was built just for this port or > not. > > For instance, if someone is trying to fix a bug in the jpeg port, and > a "make clean" in xv deletes jpeg's work directory with all his > patches and stuff, we'll have one very unhappy hacker. ;) But in *most* cases (99.8%) people are only 'customers', not ports hackers. They are only _using_ a port. That are the ones who wonder, why the /usr filesystem grows and grows after installing some ports ;) > I can change bsd.port.mk to keep the list of ports actually built > because of dependencies, but is this really worth it? The ports collection promises the customers an automated process to install a software simply via 'make all install clean'... Nobody told them that this is a semi automated process, where you have to go through the /usr/ports filesystems after building installing and cleaning a port and to do a 'make clean' here and there. It would be fine and useful to implement this in bsd.port.mk. What do the others think ?! Andreas /// -- andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.960924121230.780F-100000>