portmaster stopped finding dependent ports if non-standard
john.marshall at riverwillow.com.au
Thu May 6 23:11:47 UTC 2010
On Thu, 06 May 2010, 11:07 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/06/10 04:36, John Marshall wrote:
> > No, but (as shown in my OP) /usr/ports is a softlink to /build/ports.
> Yeah, don't do this. :) If you already have the link you don't need to
> set PORTSDIR (and in fact you shouldn't, it will create more problems
> than it solves, as you've seen). I haven't had my ports tree actually in
> /usr/ for years, but there is a link to the actual location which works
> just fine for all purposes.
OK, portmaster 2.25 works fine if I delete the /usr/ports symbolic link
and retain the PORTSDIR definition in make.conf. portmaster also works
fine if I remove the PORTSDIR definition from make.conf and re-create
the /usr/ports symbolic link. For the record, the recent portmaster
revision is the ONLY thing that has choked on having both the symbolic
link and the PORTSDIR definition.
Some years ago when I started building systems with the ports tree not
in /usr, I understood that the "right thing to do" was to point PORTSDIR
at that non-standard location. However, I kept trippping over things
that didn't honour the PORTSDIR definition or required their own special
tweaking (think pkg_version and friends, portconf, portsnap...); so I
gave up and created a /usr/ports symbolic link to point to the real
ports tree. For the sake of consistency, I'll go through and pull the
PORTSDIR definition from all my systems.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20100506/c8ba57bc/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports