On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:01 AM Alex Kozlov <a...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote: > > Am 25.10.20 um 06:56 schrieb Alex Kozlov: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 04:37:45PM +0200, Stefan Esser wrote: > > > > Am 24.10.20 um 09:48 schrieb Alex Kozlov: > > [...] > > > > > You are hardcoding assumption that LOCALBASE = /usr/local. Please > make it > > > > > overridable with LOCALBASE environment variable. > > > > This was a trivial change to get us going with calendars provided by > > > > a port (which has not been committed, yet - therefore there are no > > > > port-provided calendars, neither under /usr/local nor under any other > > > > PREFIX, as of now). > > > > > > > I understand what you are asking for, but in such a case I'd rather > > > > think you want to rebuild FreeBSD with _PATH_LOCALBASE modified in > > > > paths.h. > > > The PREFIX != LOCALBASE and both != /usr/local configurations > > > are supported in the ports tree and the base for a long time, please > see > > > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-prefix.html > > > > Yes, and I do not need to look that up in the handbook, having been > > a ports committer for 2 decades by now. > > > > > If after this commit you need to rebuild base to use non-default > LOCALBASE/PREFIX > > > it is pretty big regression and POLA. > > > > How is that any different than before? > > > > What I did is make the PATH easier to change when you rebuild base. > > > > There are numerous programs in base that contain the literal string > > /usr/local - and what I did was implement a mechanism that allows > > to replace this literal reference with a simple change in paths.h. > > > > If you do not modify paths.h for a different LOCALBASE, then you'll > > get a wrong _PATH_DEFPATH compiled into your binaries, for example. > > > > > > And I have made this a single instance that needs to be changed. > > > > Before my change there were 2 instances of /usr/local hard-coded > > > > in _PATH_DEFPATH - now you have to only change the definition of > > > > _PATH_LOCALBASE to adjust all 3 locations that use it. > > > I think you made situation worse, there were two stray hardcoded > > > string and now there is official LOCALBASE define which likely will be > > > used by other people in the future. > > > > I'd hope so to get rid of many of the 1713 literal uses of /usr/local > > in our source tree. > > > > > > If you can show me precedence of a LOCALBASE environment variable > > > > being used in the way you suggest, I'd be willing to make calendar > > > > use it. > > > Just an analogy from LOCALBASE make variable, perhaps CALENDAR_HOME > > > is a better name. > > > > Yes, I already suggested CALENDAR_HOME, but as an environment variable > > to check, if you want to be able to path an additional directory (or > > search path) to the calendar program at run-time. But why introduce > > a CALENDAR_HOME macro in the sources, if the port supplied calendar > > files are known to be found at LOCALBASE/share/calendar (for some value > > of LOCALBASE). > > > > I want to make more programs that currently hard-code /usr/local use > > _PATH_LOCALBASE instead. This C macro can then be default to /usr/local > > but can be overridden by passing LOCALBASE to the compiler (from the > > build infrastructure) when paths.h is included. > > > > Instead of referring to _PATH_LOCALBASE these files could directly use > > LOCALBASE, but since other paths are defined as _PATH_xxx in paths.h I > > think it is best to follow this precedent. > > > > > > But then I think a CALENDAR_HOME variable would be even more useful, > > > > since it would allow to search an additional user selected directory > > > > (and not just share/calendar within what you provide as LOCALBASE). > > > > My change did not add any dependency on LOCALBASE to any previously > > existing functionality. It added support for calendar files provided > > by a port (a feature that did not exist before) at a location that is > > correct for the big majority of users (who do not modify LOCALBASE). > > > > As I said: I'm going to make it easier to build the base system with > > a different LOCALBASE, but not by run-time checking an environment > > variable that specifies LOCALBASE in each affected program. > It seems that you intend to follow through no matter what. So, just for > the record, I think that hardcoding LOCALBASE and requiring base rebuild > to change it is a very wrong approach. > So, first off, it's already hard coded. Stefan's changes change the hard coding from 'impossible to change' to 'changeable with a recompile' which is an improvement. It might even wind up as a build variable (or not, doing that has some really ugly, nasty dependencies). But even in ports-land, it's a compile time constant. Quite a large number of ports will allow you to change it at compile / build time, but not after. You have to rebuild if you want to change PREFIX... So I'm a bit puzzled what makes this the wrong approach? Warner _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
