Solene Rapenne <solene@perso.pw> wrote:
> Antoine Jacoutot <ajacoutot@bsdfrog.org> wrote:
> > IMHO you are opening a can of worms. I always wondered why we even
> > wanted to support that. Even if you get this fixed I am pretty sure
> > you'll end up in other weird cases. I'm part of the 'let us just
> > hardcode /usr/local and be done with it' gang. Too much magic for
> > me. I think it's more interesting to work on having pkg_add being
> > able to install under a different prefix.
>
> I see 4 solutions about this issue
>
> - drop LOCALBASE support using another value than /usr/local
> - fix building using another LOCALBASE
> - keep it in the current state which seems to be broken
> - as you suggested, modify pkg_add to install packages in another
> prefix (I don't know how it could works as some applications
> hardcode path at compile time)
>
> I don't know who can decide of that though.
bsd.port.mk(5) says
BUGS AND LIMITATIONS
LOCALBASE, X11BASE, SYSCONFDIR and PREFIX are not heeded consistently.
Most of the ports tree will probably fall apart if one tries to build/use
stuff elsewhere.
so I think that we can keep things as there are.
the issue itself, has pointed out by semarie@ and espie@ comes from
infrastructure/db/fake.mtree containing a hardcoded usr/local folder.
No comments:
Post a Comment