From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 30 12:21:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C3D16A4B3 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-89.apple.com [17.250.248.89]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A1D43F85 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h8UJLE9D029031; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac.com (dpvc-68-161-244-25.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.244.25]) (authenticated bits=0)h8UJLCA1022029; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:21:12 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: ports@freebsd.org From: Charles Swiger In-Reply-To: <1064894027.45333.10.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Message-Id: <40C5B5F6-F37B-11D7-A7E8-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Subject: Re: INDEX build failed X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:21:15 -0000 On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:53 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: >>> Did someone add a port called 'clean' or something? >> >> *looking suspiciously at edwin* > > Good look :-). > > [ 16:23 edwin ] Original commit > clean 3.2 sysutils > New port: sysutils/clean; automatically remove unwanted files > > New port: clean searches through the filesystem for > "temporary > files" left behind by editors and the like which can be > deleted. The pattern of regular expressions is > controllable > via a ~/.cleanrc. > > PR: ports/52881 > Submitted by: Chuck Swiger /usr/ports/devel/patch doesn't seem to conflict with the existence of a "make patch" target; I don't believe that the ports system should forbid a port named "clean", or "install", if /usr/bin/install was a port rather than part of the base system. Regardless of my opinion, however, I do apologize for any inconvenience that may have resulted. At the time I submitted the port, I asked about the name on this list and received no feedback or objections since June. Should the port be renamed? -- -Chuck