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. Thank you. -- John Marshall
pgpFMl4CFuYPH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
