On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:21:52PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi. >> > >> > Some time ago espie@ added a check to make sure that /usr/ports was not a >> > symlink because this could break a couple (or 3?) ports. >> > I hate that restriction. >> > Last time I talked to him he said that chromium needed to be fixed because >> > it was one of the outstanding ports that would not build with a symlinked >> > /usr/ports. >> > >> > Well I just reverted the diff and chromium built fine with /usr/ports -> >> > /home/cvs/openbsd/ports today. >> > So I am proposing to revert the diff and if any other port breaks because >> > of this, I volunteer to fix it/them; I just find the restriction stupid. >> >> :-) >> >> I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested >> setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is >> symlinked to. >> >> I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason >> setting PORTSDIR does not work? > > Setting PORTSDIR works, but is not the point of this diff.
I'm not trying to argue with you or the diff. As I said, I have those lines removed in my local copy of that file as well. I don't know the history, or the why of those some (or a couple) ports which break if /usr/ports (or more correctly $PORTSDIR) is a symlink. However, my question was (and remains): Why not simply set PORTSDIR to the actual directory /usr/ports points to and not hassle with fixing or risk any ports that might break? --patrick
