On Friday 14 July 2006 21:33, Doug Barton wrote: > Dejan Lesjak wrote: > > On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> What's the gain? > > > > I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the > > benefit of less divergence to upstreams as ./configure scripts of various > > ports use /usr/local as default prefix, but more importantly as modular > > X.org is becoming more widespread there is tendency of various packagers > > (for example Linux distributions already mentioned) to install all > > packages under same prefix. We expect that if we follow that trend, we > > would make maintainers and users' lives a bit easier in the long run. > > Note, I am still making up my mind about whether what you're proposing is a > good idea or not, so I'm not intending this as a criticism. However, the > argument you propose above as a benefit for the move is completely > specious. Our ports are supposed to be prefix-clean no matter what the > defaults in the distributed software are, and no matter what prefix the > user chooses. Thus (other than ports which are broken now which need fixing > anyway), the only thing this move will do is ADD work for maintainers (at > least in the short run), it will not make anyone's life easier in this > area.
Actually, I didn't mean the prefix that some port installs into would be the truble, rather where given port looks for includes, libraries and other files from ports that it depends upon. Dejan _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
