[Fwd: Re: Failure At Build (?) Stage When Making Ports?]
drew at mykitchentable.net
Wed Mar 17 09:18:53 PST 2004
I apologize for the intrusion. I've posted the following on questions
but have not been able to resolve this issue and don't know what else to
try. I'm hoping someone here can guide me.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Failure At Build (?) Stage When Making Ports?
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:09:25 -0800
From: Drew Tomlinson <drew at mykitchentable.net>
CC: danny at ricin.com, freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
References: <4050C378.7040802 at mykitchentable.net>
<200403120114.00830.danny at ricin.com> <4051DC00.1000009 at mykitchentable.net>
On 3/12/2004 7:49 AM Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> On 03/11/2004 4:14 PM Danny Pansters wrote:
>> On Thursday 11 March 2004 20:52, Drew Tomlinson wrote:
>>> I'm trying to do things the "smart" way. I have two machines running
>>> 4.9. Instead of keeping a ports collection on both, I have and update
>>> the collection on one named blacklamb. Blacklamb runs Samba 2.2.8a_1.
>>> I created a samba share called "ports" and pointed it to /usr/ports. I
>>> then used smbfs to mount "ports" on blacksheep (the other machine) at
>>> /usr/ports. Here's the relevant portion of /etc/fstab from blacksheep:
>>> blacksheep> cat /etc/fstab
>>> # Device Mountpoint FStype Options Dump
>>> //<account>@blacklamb/ports /usr/ports smbfs rw,noauto
>>> 0 0
>>> On both machines, I edited /etc/make.conf to set
>>> so each would use it's own disk space when making ports.
>>> Ports build without error on blacklamb, the machine that has the ports
>>> tree locally but when building on blacksheep, they always fail. I've
>>> read the Porter's Handbook to see what I could figure out. I think
>>> blacksheep is failing at the actual "build" stage. I posted a complete
>>> build log of an attempt to build the bacula client at
>>> All attempts to build ports on blacksheep fail at this same point. I
>>> have no idea what to check next so any help would be greatly
>> Looking at the output I noticed it was in
>> Was that the intention? Or is there some symlink /usr/var to /var,
>> considering the WRKDIRPREFIX. Since the 'depend' step seems to work
>> fine, your method in itself can't be wrong. Maybe you need to use
>> hard links for some reason that I can't quite grasp (yet)...
> I set my system up with a 100MB / and the rest as /usr. So yes, tmp
> is symlinked to /var/tmp and usr is symlinked to /usr/var.
>> If you're doing something with symlinks, I'd look there first for an
>> explanation why the build fails. It says 'can't read makefile'. You
>> should be able to find out which one that is (have it build locally
>> without cleaning).
> However, the machine that has the ports tree install locally
> (blacklamb) is setup the same way. A smaller root partition and the
> rest as /usr with symlinks. Ports build OK on blacklamb using both
> make and portupgrade.
>> Amplify this if you also have a symlink /tmp to /var/tmp (consider
>> scripts using '../..' in paths etc). Does the same thing occur
>> without using portupgrade (which certainly uses /tmp), e.g. just make?
> Problem on blacksheep occurs with both make and portupgrade.
> I'm going out of town for the weekend but will experiment when I
> return. Maybe in the meantime someone can either confirm or deny your
> suspicions. :)
I set WRKDIRPREFIX = /usr/var/tmp but the same error occured. Any other
More information about the freebsd-ports