From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 13:16:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E669716A4CE for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from pencil.math.missouri.edu (pencil.math.missouri.edu [128.206.49.147]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F4343FDD for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:16:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu) Received: from pencil.math.missouri.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) hADLGPkE049277 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:16:25 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu) Received: (from rich@localhost)hADLGO93049276 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:16:24 -0600 (CST) From: Rich Winkel Message-Id: <200311132116.hADLGO93049276@pencil.math.missouri.edu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:16:24 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: p5 ports don't respect LOCALBASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:16:29 -0000 I support various types of servers and workstations which need different "local" software sets. I do all my building on one machine, so I use LOCALBASE and PKG_DBDIR in /etc/make.conf to keep the various configurations separate. Unfortunately many ports don't respect the LOCALBASE setting and install into /usr/local, even while recording the packing list as being in LOCALBASE! The p5 ports seem especially bad about this. I understand the need for perl to be able to find its local packages, so after I manually fix things up I need to know how to tell perl to look for its stuff under LOCALBASE instead of /usr/local. Can someone tell me? Or alternatively, has someone else found a better way to deal with the whole problem of maintaining different software sets?? Thanks!!! Rich