Subject: Re: including -f in RM definition?
To: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Douglas Wade Needham <email@example.com>
Date: 01/22/2006 10:20:21
Another trick is to use the post-extract rule to fix up the
permissions right after the distfile is unpacked. I have become quite
familiar with that rule working on my updated zope2 (2.7/2.8/2.9)
packages, as many of the zope product distfiles contain at least one
Quoting Todd Vierling (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Georg Schwarz wrote:
> > I just came across the problem that a RM command in a Makefile would not
> > delete a file since the user was lacking write permissions to it. The
> > file had been unpacked from a downloaded archive and was probably stored
> > there without the user write permissons bit set.
> > To deal with such issues I propose to add a -f to the TOOLS_PLATFORM.rm
> > definition in mk/tools/tools.*.mk.
> > What do others think?
> Short answer: No.
> Long answer: It's not pkgsrc's job to make the tools act unlike the real
> thing, and making "rm" imply its -f option is doing just that. Fix the
> offending Makefile via a patch, and supply the patch back to the author.
> -- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer
Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why
should my employer, or anybody else for that matter!