On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.orgwrote:
We could provide such a script, but if we set MANPATH in it, it would have
the disadvantage of making MANPATH nonempty again and thus disabling the
automatic manpage finding feature which the user may have been relying
On 2009-09-20 00:28 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
If your MANPATH is empty (as I believe we recommend), then man will
automatically search for things in all the locations specified in PATH
(that is, for every path in PATH, man will look in ../share/man for
manpages).
The installer still sets up
On Sep 20, 2009, at 07:11, Rainer Müller wrote:
On 2009-09-20 00:28 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
If your MANPATH is empty (as I believe we recommend), then man will
automatically search for things in all the locations specified in
PATH
(that is, for every path in PATH, man will look in
On Sep 18, 2009, at 22:20, Mark A. Miller wrote:
So, ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin seems to work, and put symlinks there
for the GNU binaries by default, and get rid of this variant?
I would say so... I see Marcus already committed an update to do this
to gnutar. But now I see the
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.orgwrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 22:20, Mark A. Miller wrote:
So, ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin seems to work, and put symlinks there for the
GNU binaries by default, and get rid of this variant?
I would say so... I see Marcus
On Sep 19, 2009, at 15:06, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 22:20, Mark A. Miller wrote:
So, ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin seems to work, and put symlinks there
for the GNU binaries by default, and get rid of this variant?
I
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.orgwrote:
On Sep 19, 2009, at 15:06, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 22:20, Mark A. Miller wrote:
So, ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin seems to work, and put
On Sep 19, 2009, at 22:50, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
If your MANPATH is empty (as I believe we recommend), then man will
automatically search for things in all the locations specified in
PATH (that is, for every path in PATH, man will look
Exactly, some packages that are set up to build nicely on MacOSX expect BSD
tools, not GNU. Good example that has bitten me many times, is GNU's sed
-r versus BSD's sed -E. Et cetera.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Jeremy Lavergne
jer...@lavergne.gotdns.org wrote:
GNU utilities versus BSD
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of
installing it if you don't want it as the default.
As for building ports, then we set the port to use /usr/bin/sed and
not $prefix/bin/sed for the few cases that are different.
Blair
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Mark A. Miller
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 23:04, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com wrote:
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of installing it
if you don't want it as the default.
This is one of those cases where we simply have to ignore the user's
wishes, because the user is wrong (whether
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com wrote:
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of installing it
if you don't want it as the default.
That doesn't particularly make any sense. I can install python26 and
python31, but I still want python26 to
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com
wrote:
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of
installing it if you don't want it as the default.
That doesn't particularly make any sense. I can
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com wrote:
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of installing
it if you don't want it
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:19:34PM -0700, Blair Zajac said:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com
wrote:
But if I want the port, I want the port. What's the point of
installing it if you don't want it as the
On Sep 18, 2009, at 01:44, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
Are you willing to build all 6100+ ports to verify all of them are
okay with
+with_default_names?
Also, note that some of these ports are dependencies for other
ports, so it
may not simply be a case of you wanted it, so you must want it
On Fri, September 18, 2009 12:55, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 01:44, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
...
I'm not sure what something in ${prefix}/libexec/something should
be. I suggested ${name} because that's what other ports use. Mark
suggested gnubin. gnubin would be convenient in
On Sep 18, 2009, at 06:20, Markus Weissmann wrote:
On Fri, September 18, 2009 12:55, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I'm not sure what something in ${prefix}/libexec/something should
be. I suggested ${name} because that's what other ports use. Mark
suggested gnubin. gnubin would be convenient in that
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.orgwrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 06:20, Markus Weissmann wrote:
On Fri, September 18, 2009 12:55, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I'm not sure what something in ${prefix}/libexec/something should
be. I suggested ${name} because that's
On Sep 18, 2009, at 09:58, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Yes, I did mean one libexec/${name} directory for each port that
we're talking about here. I see this variant in coreutils,
diffutils, findutils, gsed, gnetcat, gnutar, gwhich, and m4.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.orgwrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 09:58, Mark A. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Ah, true, nothing is preventing anyone from making their own symlinks
somewhere. In which case, there isn't
Since there hasn't been much discussion on this for a while, I'm bringing
this up again.
The relevant enhancement bug is https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
One of the thoughts was to use ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin for the unprefixed
binaries. Although commonly applications that put files in
On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Mark A. Miller wrote:
Since there hasn't been much discussion on this for a while, I'm
bringing this up again.
The relevant enhancement bug is https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
One of the thoughts was to use ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin for the
unprefixed
This ticket was opened
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
Does building a port modify PATH so it would ignore the gnubin
directory?
I'm happy with the current setup, don't mind tweaking the occasional
Portfile which I do, so don't really want to move them into a new
directory.
On 2009-08-21 17:57 , Blair Zajac wrote:
This ticket was opened
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
Does building a port modify PATH so it would ignore the gnubin
directory?
Yes. The environment variable PATH is by default set to
On Aug 21, 2009, at 11:36, Rainer Müller wrote:
On 2009-08-21 17:57 , Blair Zajac wrote:
This ticket was opened
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
Does building a port modify PATH so it would ignore the gnubin
directory?
Yes. The environment variable PATH is by default set to
On 2009-08-21 19:13 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Aug 21, 2009, at 11:36, Rainer Müller wrote:
You would only have to add ${prefix}/gnubin at the front of your
PATH to
use the GNU versions.
${prefix}/gnubin would be an mtree violation, which we try to avoid,
but ${prefix}/libexec/${name}
I currently use the +with_default_names variant, and I do not think
removing it will be a good idea. It sounds like from those bugs above,
the main problem is just that those names cause issues with installing
new ports that expect the names to be the built-in commands. Is there
any way that those
28 matches
Mail list logo
