Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:48:58 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Jean-Marc Zucconi <jmz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4 Makefile ports/x11/XFree86-4/scripts configure Message-ID: <20010614144858.F837@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <200106141145.f5EBjFv07256@freefall.freebsd.org>; from jmz@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 04:45:15AM -0700 References: <200106131951.f5DJp1Q56582@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010614131051.B837@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200106141145.f5EBjFv07256@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 04:45:15AM -0700, Jean-Marc Zucconi wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Pentchev writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:51:01PM -0700, Jean-Marc Zucconi wrote:
>
> >> Add a test to instruct the user to rename ${PREFIX}/lib/libXft.so.1
> >> if it is an incompatible version.
>
> > [followup to -ports]
>
> > Mmm.. shouldn't this be ${X11BASE}, not ${PREFIX}?
>
> Look at the Makefile. We set PREFIX= ${X11BASE} here.
Still, it seems wrong to me. PREFIX is where this particular compiled
copy will be installed; X11BASE is where the existing libraries are.
If XFree86 cannot currently be installed in any location other than
/usr/X11R6, then this is correct; if, however, it supports building
with PREFIX=somewhere else, then this change is definitely wrong -
the library that will be picked up will be located in X11BASE, so
the test might not even find it. If XFree86 does not currently support
builds with a different prefix, it may support them one day - no reason
not to do the right thing here.
X11BASE is where the offending libraries reside, PREFIX might point
to an empty directory.
G'luck,
Peter
--
This sentence was in the past tense.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010614144858.F837>