Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:59:48 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mtree -L is broken due to unneded type=link additions to BSD.*.dist Message-ID: <20040330105948.GA48082@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <xzpr7vavc9a.fsf@dwp.des.no> 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> <xzpr7vavc9a.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:51:29PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > People use scripts to create empty directory structures so they can > compare before / after file lists to generate plists. I understand it, but I see no difference in before / after file lists with your patch or without. Could you please demonstrate situation you talk about in some simple example I can check step-by-step? I.e. I not state that problem you mention not exists, but your patch not fix it too, at least in bsd.port.mk, just because it does nothing which not already done by bsd.port.mk Alternatvely, do you mean direct mtree calls by ports themselfs (i.e. bypassing bsd.port.mk)? In this situation ports should be fixed to use bsd.port.mk instead. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040330105948.GA48082>