/usr/local question

[Jan Stary]

On Apr 04 10:17:23, Chris Jones wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >I thought the whole reason for living under /opt/local was *not* to
> >interfere with /usr/local. How exactly does having /usr/local interfere?
> >Things from macports silently picking up things from /usr/local?
> >Is that the problem?
> 
> The issue is some packages have hard coded dependencies to look for
> things in /usr/local, and will use them if found.

Yes.

> Most packages are
> developed on linux OSes, where /user/local is quite normal and thus
> they just consider this the 'right thing to do'... In principle
> packages should provide options to avoid this, and when they do
> MacPorts can use them, but not all do.

Isn't that a task of the port maintainer then
to patch such a software so that any interference
with /usr/local can be avoided?

I just find it quite extreme to expect the user to not have
/usr/local around. The reason macports uses /opt/local (if I am
not wrong) is that macports realizes that people *do* have
/usr/local around.

> >>I don't install things there, but there are things in there
> >>(mostly from Mac OS) that I'd like to keep and use.

I don't think that MacOS itself installs anything under /usr/local

> >Yes, I have things in /usr/local too - stuff that is _not_
> >in macports (otherwise I would just install it from macports - and
> >have it installed under /opt/local), and local admin tools.
> >It would be a PITA to make that disappear during every
> >macports action (not that it's very often) ...
> 
> Perhaps the best advice is, if you find a package you need not in
> MacPorts, to build a port file for it and submit it for inclusion ;)

Agreed. I try to create ports for thing that I miss.
But sometimes I just install from the vanilla targzip,
if only for the intermediate tome before I get to
creating a macport for it :-)

	Jan