MacPorts' Directory Layout Guideline or suggestion?

[js]

Personally I prefer "everything's in the right place" approach
and I believe there's no disadvantage to do that.
It would help
 - users customize packages.
 - port creators write new portfile.
 - avoiding package conflicts.

I know it's not  easy to define "the right layout"
but there're plenty of resources that we can mimic.
For example,

HIER(7) OpenBSD Reference Manual
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=hier&sektion=7&apropos=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386

Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard


On 8/7/07, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2007, at 22:35, Jeff Stubbs wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, js wrote:
> >
> >> I'm wondering if there's  any guideline or  suggestion that
> >> MacPorts port  creaters should  follow.
> >>
> >> apache2 installs its  conf  files in /opt/local/apache2/conf
> >> but apache's in /opt/local/etc/apache/conf.
> >> Is this a bug? or just lack of good guidelines?
> >
> > May I pose a follow up question to this one?
> >
> > The apache2 install in /opt/local/apache2 looks like a tweak to the
> > default build to install it inside the /opt directory. But the
> > postgresql build is scattered just like the OP's example of the
> > apache install. (i.e., bulk is in /opt/local/lib, db cluster in /
> > opt/local/var/db/postgresql/defaultdb, ...etc) Is there is a
> > historical reason for this?
> >
> > Just to get a handle on working with portfiles, I created a local
> > repository and modified the original portfile to install the
> > database into an /opt/local/pgsql82 direcotry. Ran into a couple of
> > minor problems but was able to work it out. The server works fine.
> > I realize that any attempt  to use this modified port wouldn't be
> > worth it, but was a good learning experience.
>
> Having a background coming from Mac OS 6, 7, 8 and 9, and not a UNIX
> variant, I don't really know where things "should" go, and don't
> really care much either. "port contents foo" will always tell you
> what the port foo installed, so it's not so hard to find where things
> are, whatever the layout. IMHO.
>
> Also, the mysql5 port specifically (and significantly) modifies its
> install so that it goes all over the place, to try to coerce it into
> the apparently standard layout, but this has been criticized as
> making it hard to see where things go, and has also caused some
> difficulties for software that needs to link against mysql5 (e.g. see
> the mysql5 variant in the php5 port) and has been contrasted with the
> official MySQL binaries which install entirely into /usr/local/mysql-$
> {version}. Seems like people will complain (maybe not complain, but
> ask about it) either way.
>
>
>