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.
No comments:
Post a Comment