Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:22:46 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Florian Smeets <flo@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/ca_root_nss Makefile Message-ID: <4F509166.2010509@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F5090E2.7000604@freebsd.org> References: <201202272335.q1RNZBJc081428@repoman.freebsd.org> <4F508F9C.5040505@FreeBSD.org> <4F5090E2.7000604@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F509166.2010509>