Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:09:57 -0800 (PST) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: tg@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/bsvc Makefile Message-ID: <199703101009.CAA00925@baloon.mimi.com> In-Reply-To: <12063.857722347@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* > ${RM} -> ${RM} -f.
*
* That was reason #1. :-)
Sorry, that was an oversight in my part.
* My other feeling was that generating a temporary patch actually *in*
* the patches directory was kind of evil, and if I had to do it I'd
* simply generate the patch under ${WRKDIR} and add a post-patch target
* for it rather than a pre-clean target. Maybe I'm just being
* anal-retentive, but it would make more sense given the presence of the
* pre-patch rule. :-)
Actually, I'd do it that way myself too, if I'm the porter. But the
port came in the other way, and we have several precedences of
allowing temporary patchfiles in the patches/ directory, and I didn't
feel strongly enough to change that.
By the way, my next project (after the release is out, obviously) is
to make the /usr/ports tree "read-only" as far as ports building is
concerned, much the same way /usr/src is. That would obviouly
disallow things like this from happening again.
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703101009.CAA00925>