Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:21:23 +0200 From: Thierry Herbelot <thierry@herbelot.com> To: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Symbolic link to the ports tree [was Re: bug in patching phase of cups-pstoraster] Message-ID: <200506282021.24734.thierry@herbelot.com> In-Reply-To: <200506281949.20089.josemi@redesjm.local> References: <200506281236.08334.thierry@herbelot.com> <200506281435.33658.thierry@herbelot.com> <200506281949.20089.josemi@redesjm.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 19:49, Jose M Rodriguez a écrit :
> No, that's how this works. I can also point to several ports that uses
> this kind of construct that will break without PORTSDIR.
>
> This is pointed by ports(7) and the notes on ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.mk.
I won't argue : I had an issue, and you gave me a solution.
I just said my setup was not in contradiction with the instructions in the
ports man page (as the default PORTSDIR was correctly pointing to a full
ports tree), and the build was still failing
>
> I can make the construct based on CURDIR, but this is the most often see
> form of doing depends.
No : your makefile is easier to read with PORTSDIR
I have proposed an addition to the man page to avoid this problem in the
future (still not completely satisfying as some other people may fall in the
same trap as me)
> --
> josemi
Cheers
TfH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506282021.24734.thierry>