Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:54:04 +0100 From: "varga.michal@gmail.com" <varga.michal@gmail.com> To: Koop Mast <kwm@freebsd.org> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: marcuscom and www/epiphany-extensions Message-ID: <3f1fd1ea1002250754i1b9f1096ma8d3b80b168f27f0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1267112635.4439.27.camel@headache.rainbow-runner.nl> References: <3f1fd1ea1002250318o582bbd5ua5a695e3af5e3cb9@mail.gmail.com> <4B867F67.50409@freebsd.org> <3f1fd1ea1002250713v29671732i57d89ad0f666d1b@mail.gmail.com> <1267112635.4439.27.camel@headache.rainbow-runner.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Koop Mast <kwm@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:13 +0100, varga.michal@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> = wrote: >> > On 2/25/10 6:18 AM, varga.michal@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hello guys, >> >> >> >> it's been quite some months into the 2.29 development cycle, and ther= e >> >> is still no www/epiphany-extensions on marcuscom to be seen. Is there >> >> something wrong that prevents it from being ported, or it's just an >> >> oversight / lack of manpower? (In that case, I could do it.) >> > >> > As far as I know, it's an oversight. =C2=A0I didn't notice an update. = =C2=A0kwm, >> > avl, or ahze may have tried to build it, and ran into problems, but I >> > was not made aware. =C2=A0If you want to do the port, that would be gr= eat. >> > >> >> Well, while generating temporary plist, I noticed that >> epiphany-extensions actually doesn't honor PREFIX, probably because of >> this line in configure: >> >> EPIPHANY_EXTENSIONS_DIR=3D"$($PKG_CONFIG --variable=3Dextensionsdir >> epiphany-$_epiphany_api_version)" >> >> ..which obviously points to: >> >> > pkg-config --variable=3Dextensionsdir epiphany-2.29 >> /usr/local/lib/epiphany/2.29/extensions >> >> ..where libraries get installed, no matter of PREFIX. Also from the >> quick glance it seems to me that the same issue is present in the >> current 2.28.x port, which strikes me odd as I was under impression >> that tinderbox runs tend to catch those. >> >> Anyway - what is the correct way to solve this, or possibly - am I >> missing something in the big picture? >> >> m. > > Tinderbox will not catch this, because it uses the same prefix for > epiphany and epiphany-extensions. About the lack of updates to this > port, marcus is correct. It just fell though the cracks. Now that is > known we missed a port, one of us will fix that soonish. Or do you want > to do the work? > Technically I already did, actually it seems there are just minor changes from 2.28. Though as a personal preference, I'd like to see the prefix issue fixed first, but I'm not aware of any other port currently that deals with this, so I'm not sure what's the correct approach. Any ideas, or pointers? m.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3f1fd1ea1002250754i1b9f1096ma8d3b80b168f27f0>