From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Nov 27 5:41:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3411543B for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:41:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from bubble.didi.com (beefcake.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.12]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA28948; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:49:52 +1100 Received: (from asami@localhost) by bubble.didi.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA08925; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:26:27 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from asami) To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Gary Jennejohn Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/xemacs21 Makefile ports/editors/xemacs21/pkg PLIST References: <13027.942908631@axl.noc.iafrica.com> From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 27 Nov 1999 22:26:25 +1100 In-Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn's message of "Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:03:51 +0200" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Sheldon Hearn * >-@dirrm lib/xemacs * >+@unexec rmdir %D/lib/xemacs 2>/dev/null || true * I'm raising this here because I'd like to know whether this sort of * thing (silencing package-related warnings for the sake of aesthetics) * has become standard practice, or whether it's a habit a few people have * gotten into that should be broken. :-) It's standard practice, even recommended in the handbook. :) However, as you said, it is not a good idea to silence a warning just for the sake of it; it should be used only when it is known which other port is causing this and it is not a problem that the warning appeared (and thus can be safely silenced). -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message