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

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 11:04:37AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Picking a late message in this thread to reply to....
> 
> [ Charset windows-1252 unsupported, converting... ]
> > >>>    I think that the first question we want to ask is : Do we want to
> > >>> support LOCALBASE being different than /usr/local
> > >>
> > >> The big majority of users will keep the default value, and I do not
> > >> see a good reason for a change, except if there is a large installed
> > >> base that traditionally uses another prefix (I have seen /vol/local
> > >> and /opt, but also OS and architecture-specific prefixes, for example).
> > > 
> > >   I'd still like to see some arguments for such installs.
> > 
> > There are no reasons, if you have a narrow scope where FreeBSD should
> > get installed. If it only on individual desktop users' system, they
> > are best served with LOCALBASE immutably fixed to /usr/local.
> > 
> > But there are other kinds of user and I have already given examples.
> > Companies that have tooling that traditionally used some other prefix
> > will not rewrite all their tools if we tell them that only /usr/local
> > is supported, for example.
> > 
> > I do not have to justify the existence of such use cases, and I'm happy
> > with /usr/local on all my systems. But I do know that such use cases
> > do exist and I have worked in environments where they were relevant.
> > 
> 
> For 25 years PREFIX has been rigidly a part of the ports infustructure,
> why is it that the BASE system has been allowed to de-evolve from this
> concept as documented and REQUIRED by:
> 
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-prefix.html
> 
> 
> I again assert at one time the base system was clean of this,
> it has regressed and needs to be fixed.  That fix should restore
> the independence of PREFIX.  If 30k ported pieces of software can
> do it why can't the base system do it?
> 
> Those ports do not require a recompile, why should the base system?

I am just reacting on that phrase, you do really think the ports do not require
a rebuild to be able to relocate from a PREFIX to another? this is a myth!

ports support being built with another prefix than localbase but that is all it
supports.

There has been a flase claim for years that relocating work, but beside the
tools proposing the feature it never worked, or to be fait only on some very
specific port.

But it is just an impossible goal to achieve otherwise as for example all the
path which gets hardcoded at build time depending on the prefix will end up in
the binary looking for resources in a hardcoded prefix at runtime and so fail if
you relocate the package, for example its datadir.

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20201104/ac2a64a0/attachment.sig>