tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Use stricter PATH during build

 >>  >> The real issue is that this is very like to just disable features
 >>  >> silently.
 >>> We already have the opposite, worse problem with packages that
 >>> silently enable features based on what happens to be available in
 >>> ${PREFIX}/bin.
 >> It is always better to _explicitly_ disable unnecessary features by
 >> changing CONFIGURE_ARGS.  And I think this the only way to package
 >> software correctly.  STRICT_PATH is not a real solution because you
 >> have no control over non-NetBSD environment.

> We have other places, where we hardcode paths. E.g. _OPSYS_SYSTEM_RPATH.
> Having _OPSYS_BASE_PATH doesn't break existing concepts.

Specifying "correct" PATH is not enough because you have no control on
what kind of executables are available on non-NetBSD platforms.
For example, you cannot "disable" /usr/bin/perl on Linux'es and OpenBSD
if it is present in their "base system" and this perl may be "seen"
by pkgsrc.
ikiwiki doesn't use autohell, but this doesn't matter.
This is good example anyway.

Another reason why explicit disabling of features are really essential
is that different platforms have different set of libraries and
headers. Lots of failures on Linux are caused by this

Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index