mtree violations should be debug info, should not be fatal errors

[markd at macports.org]

Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> writes:
>I'm not sure I like that mtree violations are fatal errors. The ports  
>that are now failing to install because of mtree violations installed  
>just fine in MacPorts 1.5.0. Why should they now fail to install?  
>Their content has not changed. Sure, they may be installing things in  
>places they shouldn't, but why should we make the user suffer? We  
>have a -t switch which informs us about forgotten dependencies in the  
>port -- but this does not issue a fatal error. It's just a message  
>which portfile authors can use to improve their portfiles. Maybe  
>mtree violations could be handled similarly.
>
>I'm also concerned about needing to specify in the portfile that the  
>port intends to violate the mtree. For example, I'm going to have to  
>add that to the php5 port, because it wants to install an apache2  
>module and the apache2 layout is considered nonstandard. So just  
>because I want to install one item in a weird place, I have to turn  
>off the mtree violation checks in the entire php5 portfile. It would  
>be nicer if port would just issue nonfatal debug messages letting us  
>know exactly which files were violating the mtree. This way I could  
>assure myself that my port is installing the apache2 module in a  
>weird place, yes, but that everything else is being installed in sane  
>locations.
 
+1  And I still don't know exactly what an mtree violation is.

Mark