From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Sep 24 17:16:30 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA26689 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (root@sunrise.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA26651; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from asami@localhost) by sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA22701; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609250013.RAA22701@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu CC: scott@statsci.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, andreas@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: (message from Chuck Robey on Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:02:20 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/xv Makefile From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * This seems like one of those religious issues, that is bound to completely * irritate everyone, no matter how you do it. Why can't we have clean, and * squeeky-clean? (No, I can't make up a better name, I'm lousy at that). I That's a good idea. I was also thinking about making the chain-cleaning depend on an environment variable NO_CHAIN_CLEAN_DEPENDS (or some such), so people who does ports development and has gobs of disk space can do the cleaning themselves, while ordinary users can "make install clean" and forget about the rest. Satoshi