On Mar 23 13:59:42, RD Thrush wrote: > On 03/23/12 09:01, Jan Stary wrote: > >On Mar 23 07:11:45, RD Thrush wrote: > >>My PORTSDIR is on an nfs server. Mounting the particular nfs > >>directory on /usr/ports (and setting PORTSDIR accordingly) fails the > >>new test in bsd.port.mk. > > > >Can you please show how exactly you are mounting it, > >and how exactly it fails? > > I think my reply to Stuart has those details. > > > >If you 'mount server:/some/dir /usr/ports', > >then you shouldn't need to set PORTSDIR at all, > >(because it's the default /usr/ports, right?). > > I tried that originally but had the problem that triggered the patch. > > > >Is possibly /usr/ports a symlink itself on your machine > >(the NFS client)? > > Yes, it is. But PORTSDIR is a real directory (nfs mounted).
In the details you provided, PORTSDIR is something under /x2/... about which we don't know anything. > >>Apparently test -h considers an nfs mount the same as a symlink... > >No it doesn't; 'test -h foo' only evaluates as true for symlinks. > > I looked at the test manpage as well and had a similar conclusion. > However, I thought I'd try to specifically test for not a directory > rather than for a symlink and had success. I don't yet understand > why. Because symlinks are followed in test(1).
