On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Bruce Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It might make sense to set vendorbin like we're doing, but leave sitebin
>> alone (allowing people who install outside of macports to shoot themselves
>> in the foot).
>
> I don't know if its really "outside" of macports;
> isn't the /opt/local/bin basically only for macports?
yes. What I'm saying is if you do ${prefix}/bin/perl Makefile.PL && make &&
make install you're installing something into MacPorts' ${prefix} that MacPorts
doesn't know about - it's much better to use 'port' to manage installs and
whatnot for ${prefix}
>> Your definition of 'work' is different from mine. I'm not saying that, but I
>> don't think that having scripts/binaries installed into a place that isn't
>> in $PATH means that something is broken.
>
> So you do think that people should modify their PATH
> everytime they install or update software?
>
> How would a script installed via a portfile
> handle this? Is Macports also installing
> a symlink from a standard place to the version
> specific place?
I believe the default behavior is to install a versioned symlink in
${prefix}/bin
> (and if so how is that different
> from the normal non-versioned collision).
> Or does it have some sort of alternatives management
> going on? (as was mentioned in another response)
I believe some specific Portfiles will install an unversioned symlink in
${prefix}/bin IFF there isn't already one there.
--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
+========================================================+
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
