From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 19 06:15:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D25C16A4CE; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC1143D1D; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:15:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 68874530F; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:15:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 6D8B65309; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 4E38E33C6F; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:15:27 +0100 (CET) To: Maxim Sobolev References: <200402191122.i1JBMdHd026435@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040219135233.GK35012@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <4034C24E.60709@portaone.com> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:15:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4034C24E.60709@portaone.com> (Maxim Sobolev's message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:03:58 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: Stijn Hoop cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:15:38 -0000 Maxim Sobolev writes: > This is the only reason. By design of ports system, when you are > moving ports tree around you should set PORTSDIR. Please see my recent > corresponsence with Kris. You should not need to set PORTSDIR if you have a symlink in place, and pretty much anyone with any Unix experience will assume that wherever you put it, the ports tree will "just work" as long as /usr/ports is symlinked to its real location. Please fix your port and your attitude. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no