Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 01:57:25 +0400 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: preferred place for system-wide config files Message-ID: <86d3wsub3u.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100518203610.GA50328@atarininja.org> (Wesley Shields's message of "Tue, 18 May 2010 16:36:10 -0400") References: <86hbm5yjjh.fsf@gmail.com> <20100518115611.GA45921@atarininja.org> <4BF28470.2050903@infracaninophile.co.uk> <86hbm5vycg.fsf@gmail.com> <20100518195725.GB48168@atarininja.org> <4BF2F6AD.3020709@FreeBSD.org> <20100518203610.GA50328@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> writes: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:21:01PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> In the world where PREFIX and LOCALBASE are different, PREFIX cannot be >> relied on to exist after the port is installed. Therefore regarding >> configuration files that are not installed by the port the thing >> installed (for example portmaster) should look for its configuration >> files in LOCALBASE. > > Yes, I agree with this. This is ambiguous. Why PREFIX persistence is relevant here when we're talking about one port and not about collaboration of several ports? I can't understand why we should consider PREFIX absence here. Because, if it is absent then there is *no* port installed, too. The issue becomes moot: should a non-installed port look for files in LOCALBASE/etc or not? Besides, in case of ports that don't have any dependencies (e.g. portmaster) LOCALBASE is same as PREFIX because it may not exist prior installation, too. So, they either both exist or both do not exist in such case.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d3wsub3u.fsf>