On 17 July 2011 11:55, Marco Bröder <marco.broe...@gmx.eu> wrote:
> On Sat July 16 2011 18:21:12 Chris Rees wrote:
>> Bear in mind they should work fine if the port doesn't hardcode absolute
>> paths.
>
> Yes, they actually do! Please do not remove them, because they are not as
> buggy as it is claimed here. I often use the -p option for testing of my
> tinderbox -exp packages and it works fine.
>
> A package is basically the same as an installed port - just with some
> additional pkg meta data files all packed into a compressed tarball. If a
> package contains hardcoded paths then the port is buggy not the package or
> pkg_add. It is a general rule that ports should respect ${PREFIX}. If they do
> not those ports need to be fixed.
>
> I find it weird to think the -p / -P options should be removed from pkg_add.
> Do not castrate the tool if some ports are buggy!
>By no means is it a bug if paths are hardcoded into compiled binaries -- it's common practice and unfortunately this will not change. Another consequence of this is that most programs can't be relocated to a different part of the filesystem. Chris _______________________________________________ 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"
