Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:07:21 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> Subject: Re: sysutils/bpm fails to notice that portupgrade is already installed Message-ID: <52B1782C-F85C-11D8-AC6A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040827184233.GU52239@toxic.magnesium.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adam Weinberger wrote:
> But, in the meantime, if there is a significant cross-section of users
> who won't be able to use the bpm port, I would rather change the
> dependency line to make things Just Work. I haven't heard of the problem
> from anybody other than Dan, and I don't know whether it exists for
> others.
Feel free. Note that the problem should hit many other ports, like
www/caudium12. Also, have you tried to *run* bpm without portupgrade in
your $PATH? AFAICS bpm assumes to find portupgrade there (granted: I
haven't tried, just looked at the source, so I may be wrong).
In my book, not having ${LOCALBASE}/sbin in your path is calling for
trouble, since you assume that every binary that uses these tools have
their path hardcoded. When you extend this to ${LOCALBASE}/bin, you will
even exclude more binaries...
-Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52B1782C-F85C-11D8-AC6A-00039312D914>