On Apr 04 10:34:48, Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > > Yes, that's what I have read. But that just says why macports > > uses /opt/local: because it cannot use /usr/local, for the reasons listed. > > > > This here is something *different*: namely, that > > > > (1) There might still be problems if the user has /usr/local around. > > ? Some software (especially auto* tools from Gnu) look in /usr/local as > a default location > ? /usr/local tends to be a bad choice to have taken over by a > non-system port system > ? gcc considers /usr/local to be a standard system directory, causing > (at least) the include directory to be unable to appear early in the list of > include directories, and hence causing MacPorts-installed items to be > difficult to use properly for items which need them (where another version is > installed elsewhere, like/usr/X11R6)
Yes; I _have_ read it. The FAQ lists these as the reasons why macports uses /opt/local as its prefix. Perhaps I need to state my comment more explicitly: there are TWO DIFFERENT issues: (1) It would be a problem if macports used /usr/local as its prefix; so it doesn't - it uses /opt/local instead (2) Even with macports using /opt/local as its prefix, it is STILL A PROBLEM to have /usr/local around. The link above talks about (1), but not (2). > It isn't explicitly stated but it is implied. No it's not; on the contrary, it is implied that using the prefix of /opt/local instead of /usr/local SOLVES the three issues listed above, which it does not. In fact, I believe it is a good candidate for a FAQ immediately following https://trac.macports.org/wiki/FAQ#defaultprefix: Q: "So given that macports uses /opt/local as its prefix, I can use /usr/local freely without worying about interference?" A: No, not really. (etc) _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
