Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:09:12 -0600 From: Danny MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net> To: Stephen Liu <satimis@yahoo.com>, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Open Office - installation problem Message-ID: <opr62spmhprcgix0@shawmail> In-Reply-To: <20040426124957.76359.qmail@web40303.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040426124957.76359.qmail@web40303.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:57 +0800 (CST), Stephen Liu <satimis@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You should be able to stop the 'make clean' with no >> ill effects. If you =really= want to clean your >> whole ports tree, run: >> >> make -DNOCLEANDEPENDS clean >> >> in the /usr/ports directory. It should go about a >> thousand times faster. > > Hi Danny, > > <snip> > > What is the tag/syntax '-DNOCLEANDEPENDS' > representing? Well, -D as an argument to make(1) means "define this symbol". So it's defining a symbol named NOCLEANDEPENDS. Why would you want to do this? Because then the clean target will traverse each port in the tree and clean each of them without cleaning dependent ports, too. Since you're running it in /usr/ports, you know every port will be cleaned anyway. I'm sorry if this doesn't make too much sense. The ports(7) man page will give you a good overview of the ports system and is where I looked to find the above information. It helps if you know a little bit about make(1). > To run: > # cd /usr/ports > # portsclean -CDD I don't know; I didn't know portsclean existed. My guess is that portsclean would probably be much faster since its targetted to a specific task and doesn't need to use the general-purpose ports make system. In fact I just ran a little test to prove it. portsclean -C is about a thousand times (number not scientific) faster than make -DNOCLEANDEPENDS clean. -- Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opr62spmhprcgix0>