Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:11:31 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 231277] dns/ddclient: perl SHEBANG wrong Message-ID: <bug-231277-7788-p2dgKWRprj@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-231277-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-231277-7788@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=3D231277 --- Comment #2 from O. Hartmann <ohartmann@walstatt.org> --- Why should I address something with upstream when it is clearly a fault of = the port maintenance? The original perl main program's shebang is #!/usr/bin/perl -w #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w ###################################################################### [...] and after application of the patch (tagged post-patch) it is #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w #!/usr/local/local/bin/perl -w ###################################################################### [...] as reported. And now: who is to blame? Upstream? The problem is identified rather quickly: post-patch: @${GREP} -lR '/usr' ${WRKSRC} | ${XARGS} ${REINPLACE_CMD} -e \ 's|/usr|${PREFIX}|g' It is surely more of a cosmetic question, but I'm not sure about nasty side effects. It should be fixed - locally at FreeBSD's, not upstream. But how do you think about the attached patch? Also cosmetic (I'd prefer /usr/bin/env -S perl -w )? Regards, oh --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-231277-7788-p2dgKWRprj>