Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 20:29:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 209185] USE_LDCONFIG and not-shared *.so files Message-ID: <bug-209185-13-D5RLub81Rg@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-209185-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-209185-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D209185 --- Comment #3 from vladimir.chukharev@gmail.com --- Indeed, it's not a bug, it's a feature request. ('Rejected' would be more appropriate as the resolution, IMHO.)=20 It's not about portlint. portlint just shows the same doubts as a new maintainer has: does the port need to run ldconfig or not? Yes, using USE_LDCONFIG=3Dno helps both maintainer and portlint, but that is a good si= de effect only. Additional positive side of the requested feature is that it closes a small POLA violation. If I can set a variable to 'yes', then I expect that I also= can use 'no'. (And note that 'yes' is merely a short form for '${PREFIX}/lib', = i.e. it's redundant.) I do not demand to re-open this PR, but it would be nice to see a better reasoning for rejection. May be, a proposed form of a comment for this purp= ose? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-209185-13-D5RLub81Rg>