Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:25:05 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Horcicka <horcicka@freebsd.cz> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: docs/64342: Assumed content of PATH is not defined in Porter's Handbook Message-ID: <200403161425.i2GEP570068492@dual.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Resent-Message-ID: <200403161430.i2GEUFHs010132@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 64342
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: Assumed content of PATH is not defined in Porter's Handbook
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: freebsd-doc
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: doc-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Tue Mar 16 06:30:15 PST 2004
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Martin Horcicka
>Release: FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE i386
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: FreeBSD dual.ms.mff.cuni.cz 4.9-STABLE FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE #2: Fri Dec 12 22:05:35 GMT 2003 calda@xdual.kolej.mff.cuni.cz:/usr/src/sys/compile/DUAL i386
>Description:
In section "5.7.2 RUN_DEPENDS" of Porter's Handbook there is mentioned usage
of "which -s" to "determine if the program exists in the user's search path".
Unfortunately I cannot see any definition of PATH that porters should assume
so that they could choose the right form of dependency - e.g.:
RUN_DEPENDS= portupgrade:${PORTSDIR}/sysutils/portupgrade
or
RUN_DEPENDS= ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/portupgrade:${PORTSDIR}/sysutils/portupgrade
In scripts used on clusters for package building I have found the following:
/usr/ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts/dopackages:
PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin
/usr/ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts/portbuild:
PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:.
I am not very sure which of these definitions is actually used during the
building but I'd bet on that one from portbuild.
BTW, does anyone know why there is that dot (actual directory) at the end of
the list? It is not very typical. And why is /usr/local/sbin missing there?
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
Port managers should be asked about the value of PATH that porters should
assume for building packages at building clusters and that information should
appear on some suitable place in Porter's Handbook.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403161425.i2GEP570068492>