On 6/16/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:36:12PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Li-Wen Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >lwhsu 2007-06-16 08:25:44 UTC
> >
> > FreeBSD ports repository
> >
> > Modified files:
> > games Makefile
> > Added files:
> > games/gdado Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
> > games/gdado/files patch-Makefile.in
> > Log:
> > Add gdado 2.2, GTK2 dice roller.
> >
> > PR: ports/112470
> > Submitted by: Anish Mistry <amistry at am-productions.biz>
> >
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.1121 +1 -0 ports/games/Makefile
> > 1.1 +23 -0 ports/games/gdado/Makefile (new)
> > 1.1 +3 -0 ports/games/gdado/distinfo (new)
> > 1.1 +11 -0 ports/games/gdado/files/patch-Makefile.in (new)
> > 1.1 +3 -0 ports/games/gdado/pkg-descr (new)
> > 1.1 +15 -0 ports/games/gdado/pkg-plist (new)
> >_______________________________________________
> >+++ ports/games/gdado/pkg-plist Sat Jun 16 08:25:43 2007
> >+share/gnome/pixmaps/gdado/menu_sides_6.xpm
> >+share/gnome/pixmaps/gdado/menu_sides_8.xpm
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] share/gnome/pixmaps/gdado
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] share/applications
>
> Ideally, all the dirs not in mtrees should be dirrm'd
> or dirrmtry'd. In this case share/gnome/pixmaps and
> share/gnome.
Only if not created by another port in the dependency chain. Is that
not the case here?
We had this discussion a while back when stas was adding
LC_MESSAGE dirrmtry's into ports, though most of the ports
were not causing pointyhat errors. The consensus was that
ideally the dependency chain should be ignored.
I.e. forced pkg_delete of all packages on a system in
random order should leave as much a clean system as
possible (though pristine is often impossible in this
case).
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
