Hi, Solene Rapenne wrote on Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:48:36PM +0200: > Solene Rapenne <[email protected]> wrote: >> Antoine Jacoutot <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> IMHO you are opening a can of worms. I always wondered why we even >>> wanted to support that. Even if you get this fixed I am pretty sure >>> you'll end up in other weird cases. I'm part of the 'let us just >>> hardcode /usr/local and be done with it' gang. Too much magic for >>> me. I think it's more interesting to work on having pkg_add being >>> able to install under a different prefix. >> I see 4 solutions about this issue >> >> - drop LOCALBASE support using another value than /usr/local >> - fix building using another LOCALBASE >> - keep it in the current state which seems to be broken >> - as you suggested, modify pkg_add to install packages in another >> prefix (I don't know how it could works as some applications >> hardcode path at compile time) >> >> I don't know who can decide of that though. espie@ and ajacoutot@ would seem like a good team for deciding that to me, taking input from other porters working on infrastructure into account. > bsd.port.mk(5) says > > BUGS AND LIMITATIONS > LOCALBASE, X11BASE, SYSCONFDIR and PREFIX are not heeded consistently. > Most of the ports tree will probably fall apart if one tries to build/use > stuff elsewhere. To me, that sounds like a very strong argument to remove support for these features as suggested by ajas 'let us just hardcode /usr/local and be done with it' gang. I mean, seriously, since when does OpenBSD indulge in providing bells and whistles that are not even *supposed* to actually work? Besides, i have often heard even core porters groan that some aspects of the ports infrastructure are hard to master - most of that is certainly unavoidable because porting is a complex business, but when aiming for KISS, every small bit helps, and this does seem like an obvious chance to get rid of some complexity. And i can't count the number of times that i saw people told that they mixed up LOCALBASE and PREFIX. > so I think that we can keep things as there are. You mean, keep a feature that doesn't fully work, isn't even supposed to, and is almost never tested? That doesn't make sense to me, in particular not on OpenBSD. I'm not a very prolific porter, though... Yours, Ingo
