From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  2 09:22:47 2012
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587B61065670;
	Fri,  2 Mar 2012 09:22:47 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from 172-17-197-151.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDE614FEEC;
	Fri,  2 Mar 2012 09:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4F509166.2010509@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:22:46 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120224 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florian Smeets <flo@freebsd.org>
References: <201202272335.q1RNZBJc081428@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<4F508F9C.5040505@FreeBSD.org> <4F5090E2.7000604@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F5090E2.7000604@freebsd.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/ca_root_nss Makefile
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:22:47 -0000

On 03/02/2012 01:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
> On 02.03.2012 10:15, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Would '${LN} -sf' have been a safer choice?
> 
> Why safer? What if someone has a link pointing to another cert file?
> ${LN} -sf would just overwrite it. Now we only create the link if it's
> not there. IMHO the safest choice for all cases, no?

If the user chooses that option, the port should own the link. Having
the link point to a stale location is infinitely more likely than the
user choosing that option but not intending it to actually happen.


Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection