Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:31:32 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: John Merryweather Cooper <johnmary@adelphia.net> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/68791: [MAINTAINER-UPDATE] Update www/screem to 0.10.2 Message-ID: <20040708023132.GM58303@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <1089249413.55099.22.camel@68-169-191-150.losaca.adelphia.net> References: <200407080050.i680oKvo031955@freefall.freebsd.org> <1089249413.55099.22.camel@68-169-191-150.losaca.adelphia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (07.07.2004 @ 2116 PST): John Merryweather Cooper said, in 2.7K: <<
> > > +# HACK: This allows test builds into a temporary directory, but in the REAL world,
> > > +# gconf would have created this directory.
> > > +pre-install:
> > > + @${MKDIR} ${PREFIX}/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults
> >
> > This is true of many, many ports. I don't think it should be added to
> > port Makefiles.
>
> It is my philosophy that every port should be able to be built/installed
> with something like the following command line:
>
> # make PREFIX=/tmp/screem install
>
> Ports that cannot be built in this manner are, IMO, broken.
>
> Without this hack, www/screem (and all other such ports) cannot be built
> in this manner. The implications are:
>
> 1) such ports cannot be easily tested;
> 2) verifying the contents of the pkg-plist's of such ports is much more
> difficult;
> 3) tools such as plist cannot be used to help generate a draft
> pkg-plist; and
> 4) such ports are only notionally ${PREFIX} safe.
>
> Since this hack does no harm, makes the port truly ${PREFIX} safe, and
> allows better testing, it should stay in.
>> end of "Re: ports/68791: [MAINTAINER-UPDATE] Update www/screem to 0.10.2" from John Merryweather Cooper <<
I completely agree that having non-standard PREFIX installation die is
improper behaviour. Perhaps a better solution would be to add something
like that to bsd.gnome.mk? Maybe overload pre-install like we do for
pre-patch? If such a thing should exist, it could be abstracted to work
for all ports affected as such (at least 50% of GNOME-related ports, in
my experience).
# Adam
--
Adam Weinberger
adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org
adamw@vectors.cx || adamw@gnome.org
http://www.vectors.cx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040708023132.GM58303>