Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:25:29 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile Message-ID: <20040219122529.GA12202@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <4034A883.80907@portaone.com> References: <200402191122.i1JBMdHd026435@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040219112932.GA11187@xor.obsecurity.org> <4034A2C4.7030501@portaone.com> <20040219115641.GA11791@xor.obsecurity.org> <4034A78F.9080702@portaone.com> <4034A883.80907@portaone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:13:55PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >>No, as I said, this is a supported configuration. Moreover, I'm sure
> >>it's common for people to move their ports collection from /usr/ports
> >>to some other location and replace it with a symlink (in fact I've
> >>done that myself), and this works for all 10364 ports except yours,
> >>prior to this commit.
> >
> >
> >I still think that you aren't quite correct. You (and everyone who want=
=20
> >to move /usr/ports over) should have set PORTSDIR to its real location=
=20
> >(that is /a/ports in bento scripts), which would allow=20
> >'${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR}/' in ports Makefiles instead of much uglier=
=20
> >${WRKDIR}/../../../' (or eaquially ugly construct involving .CURDIR).=20
> >The latter is worse because in this case it is impossible to put ports=
=20
> >directory (e.g. asterisk in this case) anywhere in the file system not=
=20
> >in the ${PORTSDIR} and have it building just fine, which is possible=20
> >with the former. IMO, this is much common and useful feature than=20
> >ability to move /usr/ports with the help of symlink.
>=20
> Also my version of behaviour is documented (ans has been for a long=20
> time) as the One True Way[tm], so that I'd suggest you to fix bento scrip=
ts.
>=20
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting=
-wrkdirprefix.html
That seems to be a bug in the documentation (note that it's internally
inconsistent because it refers to both ${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR} and
${WRKDIRPREFIX}${.CURDIR} as the "correct" way to reference a port's
${WRKDIR} depending on whether that port is the current or another
one).
To repeat, 10364 ports don't have a problem with this policy that has
been deliberately enforced by bento since before I came along. Your 1
port did. The numbers are really not on your side for making a
persuasive argument here, and I'm sure we both have better things to
do with our time than to continue to debate it.
Kris
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFANKs5Wry0BWjoQKURApKgAJ0YCwpLdTru1rlSF7w1LkW2neSwKQCfb/h/
aimUHzOUz6f3ncU4dAI0PDA=
=+VUx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040219122529.GA12202>