From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Mar 9 18:46:57 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157F6D05A2B; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:46:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD7C6A6D; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:46:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by mail.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8B5A10A7DB; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:46:55 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= , Baptiste Daroussin , ports@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: manpath change for ports ? Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:20:48 -0800 Message-ID: <2721378.xr7MGKcqvA@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (FreeBSD/11.0-STABLE; KDE/4.14.10; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <86mvcvojzt.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> <86mvcvojzt.fsf@desk.des.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.baldwin.cx); Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:46:55 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:46:57 -0000 On Wednesday, March 08, 2017 04:39:50 PM Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin 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