On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:49:30PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:20 -0800):
...
> > maybe they are stable packages. This one is changing frequently now.
> > Anyways, it's my code, it's my choice. You can delete this and
> > another thousand ports if you don't like the idea of NO_PACKAGE
> > ports.
>
> The main complaint is about the missing plist. NO_PACKAGE is a ports
you are misreading things. In fact, i think a lot of this thread
derived by misunderstanding of what was in the actual port.
The plist was present from the beginning, and had full instruction
to cleanup after itself also from the beginning.
Surely i would have preferred to use some magic such as
@this-is-my-subtree %%DATADIR%%/linux-kmod-compat
and
@deltree %%DATADIR%%/linux-kmod-compat
to inform the ports infrastructure that my requirements are at
the subtree level and not at the file level (something that
i will discuss more in a reply to your other message).
The main complaint was about the use of 'rm -rf' instead of
the non-existent @deltree, which i admit is a shortcut,
but i also tried to explain why i did that (besides there
being other 99 instances of 'rm -rf' in pkg-plist in
the ports tree, most of which do this for good reasons
e.g. cleanup temp dirs or large header directories.)
cheers
luigi
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
