Antoine Jacoutot <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO you are opening a can of worms. I always wondered why we even > wanted to support that. Even if you get this fixed I am pretty sure > you'll end up in other weird cases. I'm part of the 'let us just > hardcode /usr/local and be done with it' gang. Too much magic for > me. I think it's more interesting to work on having pkg_add being > able to install under a different prefix.
I see 4 solutions about this issue - drop LOCALBASE support using another value than /usr/local - fix building using another LOCALBASE - keep it in the current state which seems to be broken - as you suggested, modify pkg_add to install packages in another prefix (I don't know how it could works as some applications hardcode path at compile time) I don't know who can decide of that though.
