On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:12:48PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > 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?
Because it's annoying ;-) Doing 'ln -s /path/to/ports /usr/ports' should just work (and it did for years). And because muscle memory looks for /usr/ports. -- Antoine
