Subject: Re: pkg/20852 aka paths in packages
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 07/24/2003 16:44:42
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 04:13:30PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > I notice that some packages have absolute paths hard coded into them. In
> > this case it is pkgsrc/mail/sendmail (which has no maintainer), and has
> > several spots where /etc is used rather than /usr/pkg/etc.
> I didn't test this, but where does it reference /etc ?
Several places, I'll point out a couple:
cd pkgsrc/mail/sendmail && make
grep STDIR= work/sendmail-8.12.9/obj.NetBSD.1.6.1.i386/sendmail/Makefile
grep MAILDIR= work/sendmail-8.12.9/cf/cf/Makefile
> Also, be sure to not force "/usr/pkg/etc" either. It should use
> PKG_SYSCONFDIR (with CONF_FILES as needed).
I am sorry, I wrote /usr/pkg/etc but meant PKG_SYSCONFDIR.
> > Does anyone know if this is intentional? I am willing to make a patch to
> > pkgsrc/mail/sendmail "pkg"ize the paths if that is the right thing to do.
> Also, regarding the subject line: what does PR #20852 have to do with
> "paths in packages"?
PR #20852 mentions files that are installed by a mail/sendmail install
from pkgsrc, but that do not get included in the binary package.
I was thinking about fixing this, and it occurred to me that these files
are not in the PLIST, and they are not defined to be in
PREFIX/LOCALBASE/whatever. The two Makefiles above determine where two of
the files will go, currently /etc/mail/statistics and /etc/mail/submit.cf.
That brought up the question, should the package really expect its files
to be in /etc/mail, or should it look first in PKG_SYSCONFDIR?