Sorry Ryan... sent a response directly to you accidentally. On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jon Hermansen <jon.herman...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I seriously support the idea of setting up a build system / distributing > binary packages. > > Most modern Linux distributions (unless source-based) install files > contained within packages to one path, and one path only. Why does it need > to be more complicated? Make it a requirement that if you want to use binary > packages, for now, your prefix must be /opt/local. > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org>wrote: > >> If we build and distribute binaries of ports.... is there a way we can >> still allow the user to choose their prefix? >> >> The prefix can be hardcoded in so many places in built ports. For compiled >> libraries and binaries, we could use install_name_tool on the client side to >> fix up all the paths. We could either build with >> -headerpad_max_install_names or with a very long prefix, so that there is >> enough space in the binary to accommodate the user's prefix. If we used a >> long and particularly unique prefix at build time, then this would also make >> it possible for the client to do a search/replace of that string with the >> user's prefix in the port's text files. >> >> Perhaps I'm getting ahead of things. We could begin with binaries only >> available for the default /opt/local path, and think about how to support >> other prefixes later. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> macports-dev mailing list >> macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org >> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
