-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:13:36 +0100 Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 18/05/2010 12:56:11, Wesley Shields wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 07:29:22AM +0400, Anonymous wrote: > >> a little confusion arised from ports/146627. > >> > >> The Porter's Handbook defines PREFIX as the place where port should > >> install its files including config files. However, it doesn't say > >> where the port should try to read its config files that may not > >> exist: LOCALBASE/etc or PREFIX/etc? Until recently I assumed such > >> files as installed together with the port unless they belong to > >> some other port. > >> > >> For example, many GNU_CONFIGURE ports look for config files under > >> SYSCONFDIR that's usually under PREFIX/etc and some of them don't > >> install config files nor samples. A few examples: xorg-server, > >> subversion, git. Should such ports be modified to use > >> LOCALBASE/etc? > > > > PREFIX/etc is the correct place. Very few ports touch LOCALBASE at > > all, and when they do it's explicitly requested. I'm thinking of > > bind here as an example. > > The principle is that PREFIX is where *this* port is going to be > installed, Yes. > but LOCALBASE is where you should assume any prior dependency ports > have been installed. Yes. > PREFIX and LOCALBASE are virtually never set to different values > although I do find doing that useful for tesing ports etc. during > maintenance work. Two examples when they differ: - - when you install a port as user under your home dir - - whe you need multiple and conflicting versions of the same port installed > I know there have been Qat port building experiments setting both > PREFIX and LOCALBASE to a non-standard value, Yes. And it's a new instance is in work. > but I don't think there have been any tests trying to install each > port to a PREFIX different to the LOCALBASE used for all its > dependencies. No, not yet, because of limitation of the current testing infrastructure. > It's also the case that some ports have to match the PREFIX/LOCALBASE > of certain dependencies: for example various of the RT extension > modules I maintain are like that. Yes, they are basically at fault (except some really really corner cases). - -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkvyuAYACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeVxrgCgkd6UzGO9QRLpcsbmVvzR2CYi fXUAoKer4/sdiGcwoFKpnW3UYWJl2dwx =e1bM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
