Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 04:30:07 GMT From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/115988: converters/libiconv port doesn't handle PREFIX well Message-ID: <200709040430.l844U7t3043951@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/115988; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: "Markus Hitter" <mah@jump-ing.de>, bug-followup@freebsd.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/115988: converters/libiconv port doesn't handle PREFIX well Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:26:03 -0500 On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:20:23 -0500, Markus Hitter <mah@jump-ing.de> wrot= e: > > Jeremy, > > while the original thing was probably an outdated package, the build > failure on a clean system with PREFIX remains. As my solution (I > found one) might not be the favourite of everyone, what mailing lists > would you recommend to discuss such things? freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org is the list that you are looking to discuss = about anything related with ports tree. > Am 04.09.2007 um 01:25 schrieb Jeremy Messenger: > >> When you want to install a port in different PREFIX, you have to >> run 'make depends' first then 'make PREFIX=3D/usr install' second. > > This works, but it's documented differently (or incomplete): > > <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports- > using.html> > > (Section 4.5.2.1) > > > Even more odd is, the port attempts to do the right thing, but fails. > > /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk says: > > # PREFIX - Where *this* port installs its files. > > Accordingly, the dependencies should be installed without PREFIX. > However, this variable is maintained when installing dependencies. Yeah, I agree with you about that the 'make PREFIX=3D/foo' shouldn't aff= ect = on the dependencies. I noticed this behavior when I wrote auto-plist[1],= = which I had to get it runs 'make depends' first before do the 'make = PREFIX=3D/foo install'. [1] http://www.marcuscom.com:8080/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/portstools/auto-pli= st/ > So, after a lengthy debugging session, I found a (2 line-)patch which > produces a behavior as documented, at least in my case: You should submit another PR with this patch and explain a bit more = clearly than this PR to avoid the confuse. Since, this PR is orignal = related with manpage problem. The bsd.port.mk is maintaining by portmgr,= = so it might takes a bit time for them to respone and test in the pointyh= at = first before put in ports tree. Cheers, Mezz -- = mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - multimedia@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200709040430.l844U7t3043951>