X11BASE warning

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

Diane Bruce wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been getting away with "hybrid builds" in tinderbox, i.e.
> a buildset with a pile of packages with X11BASE set to /usr/X11R6/
> but testing my specific port by setting X11BASE in rawenv.
> This has worked reasonably well, it is very easy to tell by inspection
> if your port has left anything in X11BASE it shouldn't.
> 
> But there is a gotcha. I recently had a port that used fltk-config
> to determine where it's link libs and includes were, of course,
> fltk was still living in /usr/X11R6, tinderbox was unable to find
> it and my build promptly failed.
> 
> The culprit is around line 207 of portbuild.
> 
> export PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:${LOCALBASE}/sbin:${LOCALBASE}/bin:${X
> 11BASE}/bin
> 
> Of course, /usr/X11R6/bin is no longer in the PATH at all, my makefile
> fails to find fltk-config and the build fails.
> 
> I suppose the answer is going to be "don't do that" i.e. one should build
> a complete X11BASE set of packages in /usr/local and use that to test
> builds against as well. However, it seems to me, that the /usr/X11R6 ->
> /usr/local is not going to happen overnight anyway and that it would
> be legitimate to have some sort of mechanism to tell tinder it can
> use a binary in /usr/X11R6/bin; That's not my call.
> 
> Just curious what others think.

I'm not opposed to leaving a static /usr/X11R6/bin in there for legacy 
purposes.  However, I think it might be a good idea to get some feedback 
from flz on this as to what his plans are in terms of migrating non-X 
ports out of X11R6.  If this is still slated to be a long transition, 
then a legacy PATH element can be added to TB.  Else we'll just leave 
things the way they are.

Joe


-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc