current@ to ports@ again. (Sorry, my mistake.)
On 07/16/2011 11:10 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
On 16 Jul 2011 17:04, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <step...@missouri.edu
<mailto:step...@missouri.edu>> wrote:
>
> On 07/16/2011 10:53 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Jul 2011 16:38, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith"
<step...@missouri.edu <mailto:step...@missouri.edu>
>> <mailto:step...@missouri.edu <mailto:step...@missouri.edu>>> wrote:
>> > For example, suppose the C source code contains something like:
>> > char applications_dir = "/usr/local/share/applications";
>> > and this is filled in by the ./configure script.
>> >
>> > How is that handled?
>> >
>>
>> It's not.
>>
>> Remember what a package is, literally the files from the plist tarred
>> with some magic +FILEs and the pkg-*install files- if paths are
>> hardcoded in objects that's how it'll be installed.
>
>
> What if some of the installation programs are binaries, and
"/usr/local" is hard coded into installation binaries or scripts
provided by the software itself.
Sorry, poor wording on my part.
No, I didn't read what you said properly.
If it was compiled as prefix=/usr/local, that's how it'll be installed,
regardless of your -p argument.
So "-p" and "-P" are inherently buggy, and should be removed from pkg_add?
(Or every port which uses prefix=/usr/local needs major revision and
patching, which I think is an intolerable workload.)
_______________________________________________
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"
