# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-24 18:12:48 -0700:
> Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think he means that when a FreeBSD port is installed in a certian
> > location (or prefix), such as /usr/local (instead of / or /usr), it makes
> > things a lot "cleaner" to have everything at the same level... programs
> > go in /usr/local/bin, libs go in /usr/local/lib, configs go in
> > /usr/local/etc, and so on. Nothing is "supposed to be" below whatever
> > ${PREFIX} the port maintainer or user picks. Therefore forcing tmda's
> > systemwide config to /etc/tmdarc is undesirable.
>
> OK, I see. Yes, I get bit by this all the time on FreeBSD, when I edit
> the /etc/foo file and wonder why is has no effect, as it's expecting
> a /usr/local/etc/foo file.
And I get bit by ports that install/expect stuff in /etc when they
shouldn't all the time. :) I know it is the port maintainer's duty
to make sure the port doesn't break the FHS, but... I do really
think the software should be more... let's say: self-contained... as
in: if you expect the modules to be in ../TMDA, why not expect the
config files in ../etc as a first step?
> At the moment I can't think of a good way to support this though given
> the current TMDA installation structure.
Well, TMDA doesn't have any, does it? the compileall script just
compiles the modules into py{c,o}, and that's it. I think a Makefile
would be nice; if you're not opposed to using make, I will write.
> Since this is so FreeBSD-specific, how about a post-installation script
> in the port to change the GLOBAL_TMDARC = '/etc/tmdarc' line in
> Defaults.py to GLOBAL_TMDARC = '${PREFIX}/etc/tmdarc' ?
Yeah, if we agree on disagreeing, I'll submit a patch for the port.
--
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
