ports/158179: some packages do not fully honor -P dir option in pkg_add(1)

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

current@ to ports@ again.  (Sorry, my mistake.)

On 07/16/2011 11:10 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>
> On 16 Jul 2011 17:04, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen at missouri.edu
> <mailto:stephen at missouri.edu>> wrote:
>  >
>  > On 07/16/2011 10:53 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> On 16 Jul 2011 16:38, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith"
> <stephen at missouri.edu <mailto:stephen at missouri.edu>
>  >> <mailto:stephen at missouri.edu <mailto:stephen at missouri.edu>>> wrote:
>  >> > For example, suppose the C source code contains something like:
>  >> > char applications_dir = "/usr/local/share/applications";
>  >> > and this is filled in by the ./configure script.
>  >> >
>  >> > How is that handled?
>  >> >
>  >>
>  >> It's not.
>  >>
>  >> Remember what a package is, literally the files from the plist tarred
>  >> with some magic +FILEs and the pkg-*install files- if paths are
>  >> hardcoded in objects that's how it'll be installed.
>  >
>  >
>  > What if some of the installation programs are binaries, and
> "/usr/local" is hard coded into installation binaries or scripts
> provided by the software itself.
>
> Sorry, poor wording on my part.

No, I didn't read what you said properly.

> If it was compiled as prefix=/usr/local, that's how it'll be installed,
> regardless of your -p argument.

So "-p" and "-P" are inherently buggy, and should be removed from pkg_add?

(Or every port which uses prefix=/usr/local needs major revision and 
patching, which I think is an intolerable workload.)