On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:50:07PM +0400, Anonymous wrote: > Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes: > > > 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, but LOCALBASE is where you should assume any prior dependency > > ports have been installed. > > This still doesn't clarify where to look for files that are *not* > installed, e.g. config files. Such files can be created by user and only > used by the port itself when they exist. Does it matter whether they're > installed or not to choose LOCALBASE over PREFIX?
PREFIX. -- WXS _______________________________________________ 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"
