Bug 116080
| Summary: | PREFIX is documented, but not the more important LOCALBASE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | mah |
| Component: | Books & Articles | Assignee: | Chris Rees <crees> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | Latest | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
|
Description
mah
2007-09-04 12:30:02 UTC
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->tabthorpe I'll take it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Markus I will look at this PR, do you have some content you would like to contribute? Thomas - -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabthorpe@FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkmMmCEACgkQ5Gm/jNBp8qBAOQCfS1i6/fPWjQRr7tyQPf+s0pvO LagAn3aC4eAqA26CIAOi+q8jhlVekpPs =K8WO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Am 06.02.2009 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas Abthorpe: > I will look at this PR, do you have some content you would like to > contribute? Hello Thomas, it's exactly the right time you come up with this. Recently I had a similar issue when trying to install a port into a non-standard location and came to about the opposite conclusion: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/130899 The real issue probably is, there is currently no common sense about how to handle installation of ports in non-standard locations. Many FreeBSD developers consider /usr/local to be the only valid place to install ports to. Some ports even have this path hardcoded (using neither PREFIX nor LOCALBASE). Nevertheless, ports has the feature to install elsewhere and supports this to about 90%. Can we move this discussion to one of the mailing lists? I'd subscribe there, then. The questions unclear to me are: - why does LOCALBASE exist if PREFIX is already there? Why isn't a single variable sufficient? - is it sensible to check prerequisites by looking for files in a fixed location like if [ -e ${PREFIX}/bin/apr ]; then echo "apr is installed" fi rarther than querying the ports database to find out wether and where a port is installed? Markus Responsible Changed From-To: tabthorpe->freebsd-doc Back to the heap, I have made no positive progress on this, maybe somebody else can do it justice State Changed From-To: open->closed PR 159551, though a duplicate of this PR, provides a patch. Close this one for favor of the latter. Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->gjb Over to me, since I'm closing this. State Changed From-To: closed->open Oops, time to get the reading glasses checked. This PR is for the Ports chapter in the handbook, not ports(7) manual. Reopen, sorry for the noise. Responsible Changed From-To: gjb->freebsd-doc Oops, time to get the reading glasses checked. This PR is for the Ports chapter in the handbook, not ports(7) manual. Reopen, sorry for the noise. Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->crees Let's get this one fixed. State Changed
From-To: open->closed
After reading the section in question, I'm certain that the difference
is adequately explained with the following extract: "For instance, if
your port requires a macro PAGER to have the full pathname of less, do
not use a literal path of /usr/local/bin/less. Instead, use
${LOCALBASE}". If you disagree, please say so!
|
