cvs commit: ports/java/eclipseme Makefile distinfo pkg-plist

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:18:52AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Alexey Dokuchaev p??e v st 19. 03. 2008 v 09:18 +0000:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:02:33AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > Alexey Dokuchaev p??e v ?t 18. 03. 2008 v 18:15 +0000:
> > > 
> > > > Not to mention that -R should've probably be used instead or -r, and we
> > > > generally try not to mute installation of files/links (as opposed to
> > > > dirs).
> > > 
> > > Since you mentioned it, I wonder, why you think it's useful to silence
> > > the mkdir calls?
> > 
> > This question was raised before several times.  When I started working
> > on ports back some n years, I noticed that lots of MKDIR's were muted,
> > while INSTALL_FOO's were not.  I thought that this is probably for the
> > same reason why we do not generate a commit message for directory
> > creating in CVS, just for the files.  In other words, creating a
> > directory normally followed by some file(s) being put in it, thus MKDIR
> > itself carries less information and probably just making things overly
> > noisy (yet verbose).
> 
> Still, the mkdir call may fall, and then the failure is less obvious to
> the user/porter.

This is correct.  As I said, there's balance to keep between noise level
and verbosity (the latter is what helping us to see if something had
failed).

> 
> > To tell you the truth, I'm all hands for a policy here.  If we decide
> > (like we had decided with patch files naming) upon certain convention,
> > whatever it'll be, I will just follow that.  I'd love to see more
> > consistency and order in our Ports Collection.
> 
> Oh no more policies, please!

I wonder what's wrong with coherent and sane policies?  I don't expect
it would be hard to come to agreement about muting/not muting
mkdir's/installation statements.  These things are not of the type people
usually feel strongly about.

./danfe