From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 14 06:04:12 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 2EF7116A4CE; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from be-well.no-ip.com (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.200.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5759D43FE1; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:04:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: by be-well.no-ip.com (Postfix, from userid 1147) id DD5EF60; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:04:10 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: Rich Winkel References: <200311132116.hADLGO93049276@pencil.math.missouri.edu> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 14 Nov 2003 09:04:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200311132116.hADLGO93049276@pencil.math.missouri.edu> Message-ID: <44fzgrt5b9.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: p5 ports don't respect LOCALBASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:04:12 -0000 Rich Winkel writes: > 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?? This is really a ports question, so I'm redirecting there. Apparently you're dealing with bugs in the ports, but it's hard to be sure without more details. Can you give a specific example?