On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:46:19PM -0500, Jason Beaudoin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:40 AM, RD Thrush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> "j" == Jason Beaudoin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > j> [ ... snip ... ] > > > > j> so my question: have other folks run into the 0 byte package behavior > > j> before, or are there others with /usr/ports as a symlink but without > > j> any other problems? > > > > j> I understand that I can remove the FETCH_PACKAGES flag and this will > > j> circumvent the problem, but circumvention isn't resolution; I am > > j> curious if I am doing something wrong, of if something really is > > j> broken. > > > > I've symlinked /usr/ports for years and haven't noticed any related > > problems building ports for i386 and amd64. I don't use > > FETCH_PACKAGES so can't comment about that. > > > mmm, tobais pointed out we should just use PORTSDIR in etc/mk.conf. >
I've had /usr/ports as a symlink for years too. I started noticing the 0 byte packages fairly recently. figured it was transient. if it's now true that using a symlink for PORTSDIR is a problem, it needs to be documented somethere. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
