Subject: Re: what's wrong with iconv?
To: Robert Lillack <>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/19/2004 16:15:10
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Robert Lillack wrote:

> According to .../.buildlink/.buildlink_iconv_done it was
> buildlinked but the links to the includes and libs are in
> .x11-buildlink. How come? I just copied .x11-buildlink
> over .buildlink but thats no real solution.
> What's wrong here?
> I have set X11BASE to /usr/pkg and have no xpkgwedge
> installed. Should I? This machine has *no* X installed and
> why .x11-buildlink if I'm building a package which does
> not need X?!

That is a problem I have encountered and reported several times.

If LOCALBASE is X11BASE then the code here in
mk/buildlink3/ is wrong:

        case ${BUILDLINK_PREFIX.${_pkg_}} in                            \
        ${X11BASE})     buildlink_dir="${BUILDLINK_X11_DIR}" ;;         \
        *)              buildlink_dir="${BUILDLINK_DIR}" ;;             \

If USE_X11 is set then it is supposed to symlink, but that is never done,
but the above code snippet sets $dir which is created with mkdir -p

This is like my PR pkg/23587 -- I think you should send-pr for buildlink3
too if this is not already done.

I still don't understand the benefit of having two buildlink directories.

By the way, the other day I noticed all of my X11R6/lib including fonts
all buildlinked :(

   Jeremy C. Reed