Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:42:23 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: bf1783@gmail.com, Rob Farmer <rfarmer@predatorlabs.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bsd.gcc.mk PREFIX or LOCALBASE? Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.99.1002142338020.21091@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <b025ceb71002131847w6a925c1i2527493cea20c7d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <d873d5be1002130008k2ea4a8d8tf7078a22f97bb9d9@mail.gmail.com> <b025ceb71002131847w6a925c1i2527493cea20c7d5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, b. f. wrote: > I agree with you, and I meant to mention this to gerald@ earlier, but > I forgot. The Ports system is not now well-equipped to deal with > LOCALBASE != PREFIX for a lot of software, and most people don't do > this, so the impact is limited, but it does break some test builds and > utilities, as you have seen. Thanks for forwarding this report my way b. I agree, based on personal experience, that in general once one uses some of the flexibility the Ports Collection provides deviating from the defaults, things tend to become interesting, but still we should address issues when we encounter them to the extent possible. On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Rob Farmer wrote: > Yeah, I realize this is kind of an unusual situation and I understand > that with the ports freeze coming up that now is not a good time to be > making these kind of changes, but just thought I would mention it > since I came across it. Well, one can reasonably call this a bug -- after all, you ran into a very concrete problem -- and for default settings PREFIX and LOCALBASE are the same, so the risk of the change is very low and I went ahead and committed a patch. Thanks for reporting this, Rob, and I'm sorry you ran into this. Gerald @FreeBSD.org -- Gerald (Jerry) Pfeifer gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.1.99.1002142338020.21091>