Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:20:48 -0800
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Cc:        Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: manpath change for ports ?
Message-ID:  <2721378.xr7MGKcqvA@ralph.baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <86mvcvojzt.fsf@desk.des.no>
References:  <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> <86mvcvojzt.fsf@desk.des.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, March 08, 2017 04:39:50 PM Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > I would like to propose a change in the localbase hier for ports
> >
> > I think we should add /usr/local/share/man in the manpath along wit=
h
> > at first and maybe instead of in long term.
>=20
> 2) plus info -> share/info as suggested by jbeich
>=20
> 3) plus libdata/pkgconfig -> lib/pkgconfig
>=20
> These three items will ensure that "./configure --prefix=3D/usr/local=
 &&
> make install" will do the right thing out of the box - by changing ou=
r
> definition of "the right thing" to match what the GNU autotools have
> been doing for at least 15 years.
>=20
> 4) Remove the hardcoded library path in lang/gcc*
>=20
> This makes it possible to work on software that includes both librari=
es
> and programs while an earlier copy of the same software is already
> installed.  With the current state of gcc, the programs you are worki=
ng
> on will be linked against the version of the library that's already
> installed instead of the version you just compiled, and there is noth=
ing
> you can do to prevent it.  You won't notice anything if all you ever =
do
> is "make && make install", because the new library will replace the o=
ld,
> but if you try to run your program directly from the build tree, it w=
ill
> use the wrong library.  This can be incredibly frustrating if you're =
not
> aware of it - imagine you're trying to fix a bug in that library and =
no
> matter what you do, your regression test keeps failing...

+1 on all these.  I think that ports compilers should not have
/usr/local/include or /usr/local/lib as implicit paths either as others=

have stated.

I wouldn't even mind if we had both /usr/local/man and /usr/local/share=
/man
so long as our default MANPATH included both if that means applying few=
er
patches to ports.

--=20
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2721378.xr7MGKcqvA>