Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > How would setting LOCALBASE=/usr break this? Of course, equally valid
> > > is the question "what will break if I set LOCALBASE=/usr"? Hmm. I
> > > think I may found out....
> > For one, man pages for ports will end up in the wrong place (/usr/man
> > instead of /usr/share/man).
> Is this really "broken"? If so, are you sure it's not ports installing
> in ${LOCALBASE}/man instead of ${LOCALBASE}/share/man that's broken?
It doesn't really matter which is right and which is wrong, it's the
inconsistency that is the problem.
> A number of ports seem to depend on the directory tree in ${LOCALBASE}
> existing - ${LOCALBASE}/man/... and ${LOCALBASE}/etc, in
> particular. They use the INSTALL macros to point single files at
> directories, which macro will quite happily create a file with the
> target name if it's not a directory. This creates a number of
> interesting problems later on.
They can correctly assume that the directories exist because we always
run 'mtree -f /etc/mtree/BSD.local.dist -P ${PREFIX}' before installing
a port.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
