Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:31:54 +0200 From: Vallo Kallaste <kalts@estpak.ee> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile Message-ID: <20040220083154.GB1276@kevad.internal> In-Reply-To: <4034C919.4090401@portaone.com> References: <200402191122.i1JBMdHd026435@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040219135233.GK35012@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <4034C24E.60709@portaone.com> <xzpisi3w3y8.fsf@dwp.des.no> <4034C919.4090401@portaone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:32:57PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> wrote: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >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. > > Who tells that? Is that voice of God or maybe Satoshi Asami has returned? > > Des, please don't speak up when you don't know what you are talking > about Instead you have to fix your own attitute, thich nowadays is about > sticking your nose into the areas in which you don't have even sligtest > expertise. As I have heard, it is voice of real people in real world. You know, users do not read documentation and someday they will discover the filesystem is nearly full. Because real users do not read documentation they don't know about DISTDIR, WRKDIRPREFIX, PACKAGES, PORTSDIR and whatnot, they simply mount new bigger filesystem, copy /usr/ports over, set symlink and think that's it. Simple and understandable, this is preferred method in the wild as I have seen so many times. -- Vallo Kallaste
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040220083154.GB1276>