Subject: Re: Broken PKG_PATH semantics on pkg_add
To: Hubert Feyrer <>
From: David Brownlee <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 08/27/2002 11:21:52
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, David Brownlee wrote:
> > 	eg: 'pkg_add /.../packages/All/fu.tgz' will fail if fu.tgz
> > 	depends on All/bar.tgz, unless you are in that directory.
> This example is wrong: Pkgs don't depend on something like "All/bar.tgz".
> They depend on "bar-*" or "bar-version", and it's the pkg_* tools' job to
> find a binary pkg that batches that pkg.
> Please let's not rule lazyness over clearness when explaining things. :)
	<sticks tongue out :>

> That said, your hack to add the directory to PKG_PATH for depends looks
> sane to me. If noone objects I'd say commit it. (Assuming this was tested
> :)
	It was, but I'd prefer to do it a slightly different way (see

> > 	Question: For pkg_add and pkg_info should the 'paths' of
> > 	packages given be added to the PKG_PATH? If so, should
> > 	they be added after anything explicitly given in $PKG_PATH,
> > 	and instead of the implicit '.'?
> I think the path should be added, and I'd say it should be prepended:
> if I specify a special dir for pkgs, I want pkgs from there to be used,
> not in other, random locations.

	Makes sense. One question though: If I run

		pkg_add /path1/fu.tgz /path2/bar.tgz bundy.tgz

	should it prepend both path1 and path2 to PKG_PATH, and should
	bundy be looked for in /path1 and /path2 before .?

		David/absolute          -- No hype required --