On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:01 AM, N_Ox wrote:
Le 6 nov. 07 à 07:05, Juan Manuel Palacios a écrit :
So, do we have an agreement on this? Any objections to turning on
warnings against /Library/Frameworks in the upcoming MacPorts 1.6?
I support to move to discourage writing to that directory, gcc's -
F flag should allow any application needing a framework to look
for it under prefix, just as Anders makes it clean in his message.
Any reason why we *shouldn't* move our frameworks into prefix?
And as for macports1.0, we can still rely on configure's --with-
tclpackage flag to place it inside prefix in customized
installations.
Regards,...
-jmpp
<snip>
Does --with-tclpackage add some tcl code to the beginning of the
port executable to add the path to ${auto_path}?
Code is added to the port executable, yes, but only in the form of:
----------
(from trunk/base/src/port/Makefile)
----------
edit = sed \
-e 's,@TCLSH\@,$(TCLSH),g' \
-e 's,@TCL_PACKAGE_DIR\@,$(TCL_PACKAGE_DIR),g'
----------
($(TCL_PACKAGE_DIR) being received from autoconf through --with-
tclpackage)
----------
So that:
----------
(from trunk/base/src/port/port.tcl)
catch {source \
[file join "@TCL_PACKAGE_DIR@" macports1.0 macports_fastload.tcl]}
package require macports
The result is that the port executable is able to load the
macports1.0 package, wherever it's put by autoconf (/Library/Tcl
being the default). But I don't know about ${auto_path}, I don't
think anything about the tcl package is added to it; why are you
interested in that?
-jmpp
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
