Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:36:35 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: marco.broeder@gmx.eu Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/158179: some packages do not fully honor -P dir option in pkg_add(1) Message-ID: <CADLo839q3QOtiNTy4eetYDDCdFfyq37qL-2DaFqEsyjNuyt3dg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201107171256.19370.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> References: <4E20FADE.6060103@missouri.edu> <4E21B9C1.9020102@missouri.edu> <CADLo83_vnPW0ET4icrV39ed1qPA036yc=YdZ_vLP2raPsj%2B4Gw@mail.gmail.com> <201107171256.19370.marco.broeder@gmx.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 July 2011 11:55, Marco Br=F6der <marco.broeder@gmx.eu> wrote:
> On Sat July 16 2011 18:21:12 Chris Rees wrote:
>> Bear in mind they should work fine if the port doesn't hardcode absolute
>> paths.
>
> Yes, they actually do! Please do not remove them, because they are not as
> buggy as it is claimed here. I often use the -p option for testing of my
> tinderbox -exp packages and it works fine.
>
> A package is basically the same as an installed port - just with some
> additional pkg meta data files all packed into a compressed tarball. If a
> package contains hardcoded paths then the port is buggy not the package o=
r
> pkg_add. It is a general rule that ports should respect ${PREFIX}. If the=
y do
> not those ports need to be fixed.
>
> I find it weird to think the -p / -P options should be removed from pkg_a=
dd.
> Do not castrate the tool if some ports are buggy!
>
By no means is it a bug if paths are hardcoded into compiled binaries
-- it's common practice and unfortunately this will not change.
Another consequence of this is that most programs can't be relocated
to a different part of the filesystem.
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839q3QOtiNTy4eetYDDCdFfyq37qL-2DaFqEsyjNuyt3dg>