Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:52:47 -0700
From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Cc: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>
Subject: Re: patch to have make clean not recurse in ${PORTSDIR}
Message-ID: <20020426235247.GD42922@elvis.mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020427094000.H56612@k7.mavetju.org>
References: <20020424224454.GM88736@elvis.mu.org> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:20:17PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:41:07PM -0700, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > > Kent Stewart wrote: > > > > > I think that as long as a make will automatically install all of the > > > > > b-deps and r-deps of a port the default should be what it is. If you > > > > > do not clean what you have generated, people will have a shock from > > > > > all of the code that suddenly appeared and caught them off guard. > > > > > > > > This only affects a make clean in /usr/ports. Not the rest. So > > > > everything will still get cleaned. > > > > > > It should also affect the make clean in /usr/ports/*, if they are > > > not a port-directory. > > > > I disagree. Doing a "make clean" in /usr/ports with or without > > NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes has the same end result, it's just a lot faster with > > Yes I agree with it. What I meant to say is that the behaviour of > "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/archivers, /usr/ports/shells > should be the same (i.e. force NOCLEANDEPENDS to yes). The behaviour > of "make clean" in /usr/ports/archivers/unzip is different, there > it looks at the value of NOCLEANDEPENDS in /etc/make.conf. And what I meant to say is that they should *not* be the same. I don't think a "make clean" in /usr/ports/archivers or whatever category should default to NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes since it breaks POLA and it may not be the right thing to do. The /usr/ports case is different since you achieve the same results, it just takes less time. > Replacing "make clean" in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/* (so in the > ports-directories, not in a port-directory) with "find . -name work > | xargs rm -rf" does break the behaviour of what the "make clean" > of a specific port can have in mind. 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. Maxime 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?20020426235247.GD42922>