Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:41:14 +0100 From: Florian Smeets <flo@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@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: <4F51225A.7000408@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F509166.2010509@FreeBSD.org> References: <201202272335.q1RNZBJc081428@repoman.freebsd.org> <4F508F9C.5040505@FreeBSD.org> <4F5090E2.7000604@freebsd.org> <4F509166.2010509@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 02.03.12 10:22, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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.
>
I thought a bit more about it, as we delete the link on deinstall anyway
there is no reason not to just overwrite it on install, in the rare
event that it should exists.
Florian
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAk9RIlsACgkQapo8P8lCvwnuJQCeI0r87iVayD/zQzgzCLt3mHjr
0ToAmgKHnJeA7lCPkzvxssbhxAHeLyeV
=10QH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F51225A.7000408>