Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:26:39 +0900 (JST) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Cc: eivind@yes.no, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug??? Message-ID: <199803190526.OAA01265@bubble.didi.com> In-Reply-To: <199803190318.TAA16903@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> (kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Suppose I have a program foobar, and the person who wrote foobar * decided to name a file tk.h. Now, suppose I install foobar in /usr/local * and tk.h ends up in /usr/local/include. Furthermore, foobar needs * tk.h to run (it may contain config info). Removing tk.h is not a * good thing. This is ridiculous. What's going to happen if some port's configure script finds it and thinks it's the tk header? Steve, we have explored many possibilities before finalizing on the current solution. (No, we didn't actually consider adding an extra variable to every port's Makefile that requires tcl or tk. That's too expensive, besides it doesn't help prevent the source of the biggest headache, i.e., port submissions from people who have obsolete files on their system.) Please let's not waste any more time on this. If you have a problem with having to remove a couple of files so the whole system can stay manageable and work for most of the users, then I'm sorry but the ports system is not for you. Satoshi 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?199803190526.OAA01265>