From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov 11 17:17:19 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E778106566C
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:17:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from avg@freebsd.org)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7BA8FC18
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:17:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
	[212.40.38.101])
	by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA15951
	for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:17:17 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from avg@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <4CDC251C.4090208@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:17:16 +0200
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101029 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: dependency on PATH
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:17:19 -0000


It seems that the check for executable dependencies relies on 'which' being able
to find the executables, and so it implicitly depends on those executables being
in PATH.
Is this correct behavior?
Perhaps ports infrastructure could add ${PREFIX}/bin to PATH automatically?
Or could it cause undesired side-effects?

The reason I ask this is because of PORTS_MODULES handling - when a kernel build
starts a port build the PATH variable is specifically set up and doesn't include
typical ports bin directories.

-- 
Andriy Gapon