/usr/local question

[Dominik Reichardt]

As far as I can tell, /usr in PATH is being honored opposed to /usr/local being picked up automatically.

Am 05.04.2012 um 10:25 schrieb Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz>:

> On Apr 05 09:00:44, Jan Stary wrote:
>> However, if a given port silently picks up something
>> incompatible in /usr/local, if might fail and often will.
>> 
>> Having macports isolated in /opt/local DID NOT save you from this.
>> Removing /usr/local is what did.
> 
> One more point to this: what if the colliding, incompatible
> software that stops a given port from building successfully
> is not found under /usr/local, but in /usr, which is
> even more prominently recognized by various build tools.
> 
> That's not made up: /usr/lib/libssl.*
> Say the port requires a newer version of openssl
> than what /usr/lib/libssl.* provides.
> 
> That's the same situation as with a port not building
> because some incompatbile software was found and
> picked up from /usr/local; except now it is /usr.
> 
> What is the advice here?
> Ceratinly not to temporarily rename /usr.
> 
> I argue that temporarily removing /usr/local is just as bad,
> and the problem of a port picking bad stuff from /usr/local
> is that given port's defect that needs to be fixed before
> the port gets built; not a reason to remove /usr/local.
> 
> (Which doesn't change the fact that /opt/local is a better prefix,
> I am over that already.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users