Dejan Lesjak dejan.lesjak at ijs.si
Fri Jul 14 20:02:39 UTC 2006

On Friday 14 July 2006 21:33, Doug Barton wrote:
> Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> > On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >> What's the gain?
> >
> > I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the
> > benefit of less divergence to upstreams as ./configure scripts of various
> > ports use /usr/local as default prefix, but more importantly as modular
> > X.org is becoming more widespread there is tendency of various packagers
> > (for example Linux distributions already mentioned) to install all
> > packages under same prefix. We expect that if we follow that trend, we
> > would make maintainers and users' lives a bit easier in the long run.
> Note, I am still making up my mind about whether what you're proposing is a
> good idea or not, so I'm not intending this as a criticism. However, the
> argument you propose above as a benefit for the move is completely
> specious. Our ports are supposed to be prefix-clean no matter what the
> defaults in the distributed software are, and no matter what prefix the
> user chooses. Thus (other than ports which are broken now which need fixing
> anyway), the only thing this move will do is ADD work for maintainers (at
> least in the short run), it will not make anyone's life easier in this
> area.

Actually, I didn't mean the prefix that some port installs into would be the 
truble, rather where given port looks for includes, libraries and other files 
from ports that it depends upon.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list