Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:51:29 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mtree -L is broken due to unneded type=link additions to BSD.*.dist Message-ID: <xzpr7vavc9a.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040330103119.GA47518@nagual.pp.ru> (Andrey Chernov's message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:31:19 %2B0400") References: <20040328182314.GA99956@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpisgmwurw.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040330093548.GA46139@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpvfkmvdew.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040330103119.GA47518@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> writes: > I am not sure I understand situation you describe. As I see, there is a > step in bsd.port.mk when directories are created (and symlinks we discuss > too, just few lines later). Even with your patch, they will be created in > exact the same place in bsd.port.mk - i.e. I see no difference in > before/after installing the port situation with your patch or without it. > Please explain the difference. People use scripts to create empty directory structures so they can compare before / after file lists to generate plists. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpr7vavc9a.fsf>