post-deinstall target is invalid

[Wesley Shields]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 09:14:02PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:47:27PM +0200, Gabor Kovesdan thus spake:
> >> >On 2012.03.29. 20:49, Jason Helfman wrote:
> >> >> I will work on a effort, as well, to get some supporting
> >> documentation
> >> >> into
> >> >> the Porter's Handbook.
> >> >Jason, thanks for this cleanup work. Have you checked if there is any
> >> >portlint check for this? It would also be very valuable.
> >> >
> >> >Gabor
> >> >
> >> Your welcome, and thanks.
> >>
> >> I did consider it, however it was also noted to me that portlint
> >> shouldn't
> >> take the place of poor port coding. That doesn't mean it can't be done,
> >> but
> >> I also tend to agree with this. Perhaps adding logic to bpm would be a
> >> good
> >> way to wrap it up, as well.
> >
> > I'm not sure we should add anything to bpm. It's a legitimate name of a
> > custom target which maintainers can use if they want. We should be
> > vigilant of code which assumes it will be called though, but there's
> > nothing wrong with it being a custom target that the maintainer wants
> > for one reason or another.
> >
> > -- WXS
> >
> >
> I don't completely disagree, however the target is never used, and in all
> cases it merely performed the actions that were already being done in a
> pkg-deinstall script, or the action wasn't done due to an assumption that
> the target was valid.

My comment was about adding code to bsd.port.mk. Removing the dead code
that was already in the tree was the right thing to do, thank you.

-- WXS