/usr/local question

[Jan Stary]

On Apr 05 08:25:49, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> 
> > Again, this is not entirely true: the proper way for a port to
> > not accidently pick up unwanted dependencies is to say --disable-whatever
> > in the Portfile (and yes, I have run into that problem in ports
> > I maintain). Not all ports provide a way to declare this, so
> > you make sure it doesn't happen by removing /usr/local altgether,
> > or making the user remove his /usr/local, which you will agree is
> > a pretty extreme measure on a UNIX system.
> 
> Simply put, MacPorts does not "SUPPORT" /usr/local in the sense that if you ask for help from MacPorts we are going to ask you to move /usr/local out of the way rather then tediously work though the contents of /usr/local. Our resources are better spent on other tasks.

I respect that.

However, I believe that if a port chokes on picking up 
some unintended dependency it found in /usr/local
(or anywhere, for that matter), it is that port's
problem: I don't think it's /usr/local's fault being
there - I think it's the port's defect geting confused
by that.

Hence in terms of the (limited) resources, I believe
it's the port maintainer's job to rectify this by
actually fixing that (broken) port so that it no
longer gets confused.

I am willing to help this with ports that interest me.
Is there a way in trac to specifically select the ports
that have this problem? (Or is there even a keyword for
that, such as 'usrlocal', 'externalconflict' or whatever?)

	Jan