Subject: Re: pkg/37608: audit-packages
To: None <adrianp@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,>
From: Adrian Portelli <adrianp@stindustries.net>
List: pkgsrc-bugs
Date: 12/27/2007 15:25:02
The following reply was made to PR pkg/37608; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Adrian Portelli <adrianp@stindustries.net>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: jam@pobox.com
Subject: Re: pkg/37608: audit-packages
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:24:13 +0000
jam@pobox.com wrote:
> Third one is about the treatment of sbin. The audit-packages is
> installed into /usr/pkg/sbin. However, I don't want to put /usr/pkg/sbin
> directory in my PATH env-variable. This is my policy. A program placed
> under sbin is for privileged users. So, I don't want to put sbin in my
> PATH env-variable. However, pkgsrc makefiles require audit-packages by
> default. Is it possible to install audit-packages program into /usr/pkg/bin
> instead of /usr/pkg/sbin? Or, is it possible to write audit-packages
> program with full path?
Just to clarify a point: pkgsrc Makefile(s) don't 'require'
audit-packages by default it's entirely optional. The pkgsrc
infrastructure will function just fine without audit-packages.
To answer your original issue of audit-packages and
download-vulnerability-list and the system default ${PATH} I'm in the
middle of addressing this at the moment in pkgsrc HEAD. I'd hoped to get
it into 2007Q4 but unfortunately I didn't get all the changes in. Over
the next few weeks I'll commit the necessary changes so that pkgsrc does
not expect audit-packages and/or download-vulnerability-list to be on
your ${PATH}.
adrian.