Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I'm not sure I like that mtree violations are fatal errors. The ports >that are now failing to install because of mtree violations installed >just fine in MacPorts 1.5.0. Why should they now fail to install? >Their content has not changed. Sure, they may be installing things in >places they shouldn't, but why should we make the user suffer? We >have a -t switch which informs us about forgotten dependencies in the >port -- but this does not issue a fatal error. It's just a message >which portfile authors can use to improve their portfiles. Maybe >mtree violations could be handled similarly. > >I'm also concerned about needing to specify in the portfile that the >port intends to violate the mtree. For example, I'm going to have to >add that to the php5 port, because it wants to install an apache2 >module and the apache2 layout is considered nonstandard. So just >because I want to install one item in a weird place, I have to turn >off the mtree violation checks in the entire php5 portfile. It would >be nicer if port would just issue nonfatal debug messages letting us >know exactly which files were violating the mtree. This way I could >assure myself that my port is installing the apache2 module in a >weird place, yes, but that everything else is being installed in sane >locations. +1 And I still don't know exactly what an mtree violation is.
Mark _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev