From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug 27 18:39:27 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4980116A4CE; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:39:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de
	[212.202.50.15])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1180943D5A; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:39:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com)
Received: from dhcp-13.local ([172.16.0.13])
	by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.42 (FreeBSD))
	id 1C0ldE-000LlX-AR; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:39:26 +0200
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:39:37 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org>
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040827182237.GP52239@toxic.magnesium.net>
Message-Id: <7317C1EB-F858-11D8-AC6A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
cc: sethk@meowfishies.com
cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
cc: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>
Subject: Re: sysutils/bpm fails to notice that portupgrade is already
	installed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:39:27 -0000

Adam Weinberger wrote:

> So is this a local problem for Dan, do you think, or would it be in
> everyone's best interest to change bpm's portupgrade dependency?

I think it is in everyone's best interest to have a common view of the 
problem, so just changing the dependency in sysutils/bpm won't changee 
much.

Either we change *all* dependencies to executables in 
/usr/local/{sbin,bin}, or we set the PATH to include 
${LOCALBASE}/{sbin,bin} in bsd.port.mk, or we require users to have 
/usr/local/{sbin,bin} in the PATH.

As far as I am concerned I would go for solution #2, and I think 
requiring users to have /usr/local/{sbin,bin} in the PATH (which is the 
default in /usr/share/skel/dot.profile) as a workaround until we have 
things fixed seems OK to me.

-Oliver