Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:57:54 -0700 From: John Merryweather Cooper <johnmary@adelphia.net> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/68791: [MAINTAINER-UPDATE] Update www/screem to 0.10.2 Message-ID: <1089262674.55099.25.camel@68-169-191-150.losaca.adelphia.net> In-Reply-To: <20040708023132.GM58303@toxic.magnesium.net> References: <200407080050.i680oKvo031955@freefall.freebsd.org> <1089249413.55099.22.camel@68-169-191-150.losaca.adelphia.net> <20040708023132.GM58303@toxic.magnesium.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 19:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> >> (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
An all-GNOME solution would, of course be best. I would completely
endorse overloading pre-install.
jmc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1089262674.55099.25.camel>