On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:54:44PM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
However, note that you need to move LOCALBASE and X11BASE for *all*
ports, not one. (For instance, you can't expect an emacs-lisp package
to install correctly if you just try to move it while emacs is still
in
On Thu 2000-08-24 (20:52), Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:54:44PM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
However, note that you need to move LOCALBASE and X11BASE for *all*
ports, not one. (For instance, you can't expect an emacs-lisp package
to install correctly if
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami writes:
* From: Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
* How does it decide whether or not a package conforms?
* Probably by looking for files which get installed in /usr/local or
* /usr/X11R6 instead of ${LOCALBASE} or
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sheldon Hearn writes:
: On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:36:56 +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
:
: Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local,
: apart from Solaris influence? Do you use /usr/local for anything?
:
: NetBSD uses /usr/opt . It's a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "David O'Brien" writes:
: Yes, local stuff. IMHO, the Ports Collection using /usr/local was the
: biggest mistake of it. The ports collection should have used /usr/pkg/
: as NetBSD does. I have to create /usr/truely-local on my FreeBSD
: machines.
But the ports
In list.freebsd-current Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sheldon Hearn writes:
: On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:36:56 +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
:
: Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local,
: apart from Solaris influence?
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami writes:
* However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
* weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
* basis. That's not you.
I can help you when the new package building cluster (being put
together by Paul Saab at
However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
basis. That's not you.
There is a non-trivial Perl5 LOCALBASE problem that I'm trying to
get my head around.
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement:
Mark Murray writes:
However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
basis. That's not you.
There is a non-trivial Perl5 LOCALBASE problem that I'm trying to
get my head around.
If this is the problem with
Mark Murray writes:
However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
basis. That's not you.
There is a non-trivial Perl5 LOCALBASE problem that I'm trying to
get my head around.
I'm actually discussing one
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:01:59AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
Um - why? If you removed the setting of LOCALBASE in that case, you
wouldn't change the disk layout at all.
I prefer installed executables, data files, and man pages to refer to
/opt. Duh.
However, I was wondering if there was
"Jacques A. Vidrine" wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:01:59AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
Um - why? If you removed the setting of LOCALBASE in that case, you
wouldn't change the disk layout at all.
I prefer installed executables, data files, and man pages to refer to
/opt. Duh.
Just
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:36:56 +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local,
apart from Solaris influence? Do you use /usr/local for anything?
NetBSD uses /usr/opt . It's a matter of taste. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local,
apart from Solaris influence?
No Solaris influence, actually. Just strlen("/opt") strlen("/usr/local").
It looks nicer to me. Secondarily to see if
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
Do you use /usr/local for anything?
Yes, local stuff. IMHO, the Ports Collection using /usr/local was the
biggest mistake of it. The ports collection should have used /usr/pkg/
as NetBSD does. I have to create
Konstantin Chuguev writes:
"Jacques A. Vidrine" wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:01:59AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
Um - why? If you removed the setting of LOCALBASE in that case, you
wouldn't change the disk layout at all.
I prefer installed executables, data files, and man pages to
Out of the ether, David O'Brien spewed forth the following bitstream:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
Do you use /usr/local for anything?
Yes, local stuff. IMHO, the Ports Collection using /usr/local was the
biggest mistake of it. The ports collection
* From: Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
* weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
* basis. That's not you.
I can help you when the new package building cluster (being put
together by Paul Saab at the
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami writes:
* From: Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* However, I was wondering if there was anyone who could fix things that
* weren't PREFIX clean who would also find them on a regular
* basis. That's not you.
I can help you when the new package building cluster
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
How does it decide whether or not a package conforms?
Probably by looking for files which get installed in /usr/local or
/usr/X11R6 instead of ${LOCALBASE} or ${X11BASE} :-)
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
--
* From: Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
*
* How does it decide whether or not a package conforms?
*
* Probably by looking for files which get installed in /usr/local or
* /usr/X11R6 instead of ${LOCALBASE} or ${X11BASE} :-)
Actually, it's
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:59:26PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
I'm curious - are there any committers who regularly use a system with
LOCALBASE set to something other than /usr/local?
I have LOCALBASE=/opt for a couple of years now.
OTOH, I also have a symlink from /usr/local - /opt due to a
Jacques A. Vidrine writes:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:59:26PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
I'm curious - are there any committers who regularly use a system with
LOCALBASE set to something other than /usr/local?
I have LOCALBASE=/opt for a couple of years now.
OTOH, I also have a symlink
23 matches
Mail list logo
