Personally I prefer "everything's in the right place" approach and I believe there's no disadvantage to do that. It would help - users customize packages. - port creators write new portfile. - avoiding package conflicts.
I know it's not easy to define "the right layout" but there're plenty of resources that we can mimic. For example, HIER(7) OpenBSD Reference Manual http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=hier&sektion=7&apropos=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386 Filesystem Hierarchy Standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard On 8/7/07, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 5, 2007, at 22:35, Jeff Stubbs wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, js wrote: > > > >> I'm wondering if there's any guideline or suggestion that > >> MacPorts port creaters should follow. > >> > >> apache2 installs its conf files in /opt/local/apache2/conf > >> but apache's in /opt/local/etc/apache/conf. > >> Is this a bug? or just lack of good guidelines? > > > > May I pose a follow up question to this one? > > > > The apache2 install in /opt/local/apache2 looks like a tweak to the > > default build to install it inside the /opt directory. But the > > postgresql build is scattered just like the OP's example of the > > apache install. (i.e., bulk is in /opt/local/lib, db cluster in / > > opt/local/var/db/postgresql/defaultdb, ...etc) Is there is a > > historical reason for this? > > > > Just to get a handle on working with portfiles, I created a local > > repository and modified the original portfile to install the > > database into an /opt/local/pgsql82 direcotry. Ran into a couple of > > minor problems but was able to work it out. The server works fine. > > I realize that any attempt to use this modified port wouldn't be > > worth it, but was a good learning experience. > > Having a background coming from Mac OS 6, 7, 8 and 9, and not a UNIX > variant, I don't really know where things "should" go, and don't > really care much either. "port contents foo" will always tell you > what the port foo installed, so it's not so hard to find where things > are, whatever the layout. IMHO. > > Also, the mysql5 port specifically (and significantly) modifies its > install so that it goes all over the place, to try to coerce it into > the apparently standard layout, but this has been criticized as > making it hard to see where things go, and has also caused some > difficulties for software that needs to link against mysql5 (e.g. see > the mysql5 variant in the php5 port) and has been contrasted with the > official MySQL binaries which install entirely into /usr/local/mysql-$ > {version}. Seems like people will complain (maybe not complain, but > ask about it) either way. > > > _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
