[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
[Let me emphasize that above a little more: un my mind, you're making
a system that's hostile to progammers, unless they are willing to
program for OpenBSD itself.
I assume you never used OpenBSD for serious development of software that
has to be run on different target platforms, because...: you are just
plain wrong.
OpenBSD is indeed one of the best platforms to do development and
testing on,
even if writing code that is targeted at a different platform.
OK, I stated that I'm talking about getting the ports not to allow
development ... I'm talking about getting ports to allow you to specify
that it is to use some parts that you provide, and not stubbornly
require that it supply all the pieces.
I had put in my own gettext, which installed libintl.so.7.3. The ports
installed, on it's own (and I cou;d see how to override this) a
libintl.so.2.0, but when gmake linked, it added in the 7.3, and gmake
did 2 rotten things: it found the files that my gettext had installed,
and refused to ovewrite them, and then added a @wantlib in the +CONTENTS
file of the gmake package, but (why?) couldn't find the libintl.so.7.3
that the ldconfig found ok.
In other words, the ports really kicked up hell that I'd had the gaul to
put my own files in, and I couldn't get it to lose the idea.
I
m not completely finished trying to find a way around this, but are your
comments above predicated on the idea of mixing ports and non-ports
development?
