cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile

[Maxim Sobolev]

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> 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 
>>>to move /usr/ports over) should have set PORTSDIR to its real location 
>>>(that is /a/ports in bento scripts), which would allow 
>>>'${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR}/' in ports Makefiles instead of much uglier 
>>>${WRKDIR}/../../../' (or eaquially ugly construct involving .CURDIR). 
>>>The latter is worse because in this case it is impossible to put ports 
>>>directory (e.g. asterisk in this case) anywhere in the file system not 
>>>in the ${PORTSDIR} and have it building just fine, which is possible 
>>>with the former. IMO, this is much common and useful feature than 
>>>ability to move /usr/ports with the help of symlink.
>>
>>Also my version of behaviour is documented (ans has been for a long 
>>time) as the One True Way[tm], so that I'd suggest you to fix bento scripts.
>>
>>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).

No, there is no inconsistency, please read again. It only tells that if 
you are defining your own WRKDIR in your port, you should define it as

catfoo/portbar/Makefile:
  WRKDIR = ${WRKDIRPREFIX}${.CURDIR}/blablabla

This has nothing to do with reffering other ports.

> 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.

Only small fraction of all those 10364  ports reffer to other ports 
WRKDIR (30-40 according to a quick greep), 3 of them correctly use 
${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR}, all others probably were "fixed" to 
workaround a broken assumption that bento makes.

Please fix bento instead of arguing obvious.

-Maxim