On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
running a `make package` on a port that has an available package on your favorite ftp/http mirror (give in $PKG_PATH, not specified in etc/mk.conf (I still want to test that minor difference). read the last few messages for more information. <snip> Regards, ~Jason
