On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:52:23PM -0500, Jason Beaudoin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > to be clear, my tests with a symlinked usr/ports was also with > FETCH_PACKAGES=Yes.
I've been following the thread. I never figured out what sequence of events lead to the 0 byte packages though. I don't think using FETCH_PACKAGES is venturing into unsupported territory. I've been using it since it was available. so I expect it to work just as well as everything else. > but yes, 0 byte packages are odd. > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > > > > > > > ~Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
