Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:12:11 +0300
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>
Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR}
Message-ID: <20020429121211.A342@straylight.oblivion.bg>
In-Reply-To: <20020427002814.GE42922@elvis.mu.org>; from mux@freebsd.org on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:28:14PM -0700
References: <20020424191430.W62277-100000@zoot.corp.yahoo.com> <20020426204935.GA42922@elvis.mu.org> <3CC9D357.9010105@owt.com> <20020426224107.GB42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427090419.F56612@k7.mavetju.org> <20020426232017.GC42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org> <20020426235247.GD42922@elvis.mu.org> <20020427101938.A77837@k7.mavetju.org> <20020427002814.GE42922@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:28:14PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > > Uh ? In what way ? The only case that my patch would broke that I am > > > able to imagine is if there was some port in /usr/ports depending on > > > another port not itself in this tree but elsewhere, which is *very* > > > unlikely. > >=20 > > It will break if the port itself has a clean-target. Not all of > > them, actually probably close to "none of them" has it, but they > > have the capability to have one and that is something which should > > be reserved. >=20 > That's right. I think it's a good thing if my patch breaks something > which a port shouldn't do anyway, though. :-) My feelings exactly. A port's *build* should not affect anything, repeat, *anything*, outside its work directory. This is even codified in the Porter's Handbook, section 15.3 (well, okay, so the Porter's Handbook is a guide and not a hard-and-fast rulebook, but I think that it would be quite sensible to treat this particular rule as a hard-and-fast one). The 'clean' target cleans up the files generated during the build and the build only. From these two statements, it follows that the 'clean' target should not have - ever - to remove any files outside the port's work directory. I personally cannot think of any case in which a port would ever want to override (or even supplant) the 'clean' target. Feel free to point out some :) G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 If this sentence didn't exist, somebody would have invented it. --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjzNDmsACgkQ7Ri2jRYZRVN53gCfQv/ZAHFyr3dKPczQ8dXOeu3n NFgAoJTyo/dTqLgyTXbU2KJdYC/lUzvY =wSL/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020429121211.A342>