svn commit: r367280 - head/lib/libc/gen

[Emmanuel Vadot]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:10:39 +0200
Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:49:07PM +0100, Emmanuel Vadot wrote:
> >  I think that the first question we want to ask is : Do we want to
> > support LOCALBASE being different than /usr/local
> >  I honestly don't see any advantages of making it !=/usr/local/ and
> > before we start putting a lot of new/useless(for I guess 99% of our
> > user base) in the tree we should here why people are using /usr/pkg or
> > whatever weird location.
> >  If they have some good argument, then we should proceed further.
> 
> I would be delighted to be able to install _and use_ two independent
> set of packages from the same base system install.  Without recursing
> to jails, X forwarding, etc.
> 
> In fact I would like to use /usr/local and e.g /usr/local-i386 on amd64
> machine.  I am fine with me building both of them in my instance of
> poudriere.
> 
> But indeed I am not sure if this worth the effort of many people, for many
> hours.  If it puts too high burden on everybody, then it is not a good
> feature.  Otherwise, it is very convenient in some situations.

 I understand this situation but I think that the best way for you do
do that is to use pkg install -r /path/to/my/i386/packages

 Since you will need to tweak you PATH variable to start applications
installed in /usr/local-i386 anyway it's not too much to tweak that to
the pkg path for your i386 repo.

 The "downside" of using this method is that you will have
a /usr/local/ under the /path/to/my/i386/packages.
 The "upside" of using this method is that you would be able to use the
same i386 packages on a native i386 install and they would install
in /usr/local/ (so no tweaking here).

-- 
Emmanuel Vadot <manu at bidouilliste.com>