On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Mark A. Miller wrote:
Since there hasn't been much discussion on this for a while, I'm
bringing this up again.
The relevant enhancement bug is https://trac.macports.org/ticket/20748
One of the thoughts was to use ${prefix}/libexec/gnubin for the
unprefixed binaries. Although commonly applications that put files
in here, intend these binaries to only be run by other binaries (A
good example is HAL on Linux, it installs many HAL wrapper scripts
in /libexec). But I think that there's no real reason to prevent
putting gnubin (or whatever it ends up being called) under libexec.
It seems a good enough place, and people who use this option to put
unprefixed binaries here probably wouldn't have any issue with its
location.
Another thing that was brought up in the ticket is the idea that the
scripts should be modified if you want unprefixed binaries. This
doesn't particularly work well when you're dealing with large
projects with giant recursive makefiles. You want to spend time
trying to find the real issues with porting the software to MacOSX,
rather than spend hours fighting standard BSD/GNU differences like
sed/et cetera. At least that's my experience.
Thoughts?
I actaully was thinking the opposite, that if you want the port
installed, it should install the binaries into the default location
for everything to pick up, so as in effect make +with_default_names
the default and add a +no_default_names otion.
After all, if you're installing the port, then just use it normally.
This is similar to the way that we now replace Apple's xorg with our
own.
Are there any reasons not to do this?
Regards,
Blair
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
