On 08/04/21 07:27, Jim Trigg wrote:
I am going to submit that PORTSBASE should be something other than /usr/local/. My current preference (though not solid) is /ports/. I would like to reclaim /usr/local for true local (site-based, not distribution-based) things. (Example: local [site-based] scripts in /usr/local/s?bin/.)
Not sure if PORTSBASE is the name of what you mean, Looks like you mean PREFIX and LOCALBASE. You can redefine those if you want your ports to be installed in a different path than the default.
On a related note, I would like to see maildirmake separated out as a port of its own on which ports supporting Maildir depend. That way we avoid clunkiness like "/usr/local/bin/maildrop-maildirmake". (The first point most recently evidenced itself as "where do I put a symbolic link to maildrop-maildirmake called maildirmake?".)
As the maintainer of maildrop and other related ports, I am installing it like that to avoid conflicts with other ports installing the same thing.
Please note that mail/courier-imap installs it as bin/maildirmake. ports/pkg do not provide an official way to create symlinks, anyway the two executables are completely equivalent.
Upstream does not provide maildirmake as a separate package and I'm only following upstream practices. As I stated in the past, my opinion is that ports is just that, ports, not a place for original development.
If you'd like to extract maildirmake from the courier ports as a standalone package I have no objection, you can do that and submit a port of the result, providing upstream tarball and all.
-- Guido Falsi <m...@madpilot.net> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
