Subject: Re: pax and pkgsrc and can someone look at PR pkg/22693?
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: grant beattie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 09/24/2003 11:44:12
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:39:34PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> x11-links needs pax.
> I have heard that pax is essential for pkgsrc. Nevertheless ...
> My system didn't have pax. It has 54 packages installed -- most via
> pkgsrc without any pax.


*lots* of packages use pax, it really is required.

> It might be a good idea to make x11-links have a BUILD_DEPENDS on a pax.
> Any comments?
> I know I mentioned before, but why doesn't pax get registered as a
> package? Why does it have NO_MTREE?

it's required for bootstrapping, though archivers/pax will generally
only be built on an already-bootstrapped system, so this should
probably be addressed.

> And can someone comment on pkg/22693?
> If GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX is not set or nothing, pax will overwrite tar and
> cpio :(

don't set GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX to nothing? ;-)

I don't have a clean solution to this at the moment, except for
having the two packages conflict with each other, and I realise this
isn't ideal...

> (My temp workaround instead of continueing to patch pax, is to use my
> wip/opax.)

what are the advantages of this? (I haven't looked at the pkg)