On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Jason Beaudoin wrote: > Ports, > > I am running into some odd behavior when building ports, whereby some > ports build fine, while others result in 0 byte packages in my local > repository. I believe the problem ports are ones that have packages > available on the ftp mirrors as well (retrieved using FETCH_PACKAGES). > As a problem, this will then usually surface when attempting to > pkg_add the 0 byte package, specifically when the port is needed as a > build dependency of a port that I am installing. More information > about the problem where this surfaced can be found in a previous post: > [1] > > In my testing, the 0 byte package issue results in two of three cases, either: > - /usr/ports is a symlink to another directory (which I have heard is > supposed to work, maybe this is not the case) > - or when building ports from inside a chroot environment. > Elderley.net has an ssh-chroot setup for a special ports user, I don't > know if the two chroot's are different. > > (the third case is building ports with a standard /usr/ports, no > symlink, no chroot) > > so my question: have other folks run into the 0 byte package behavior > before, or are there others with /usr/ports as a symlink but without > any other problems? > > I understand that I can remove the FETCH_PACKAGES flag and this will > circumvent the problem, but circumvention isn't resolution; I am > curious if I am doing something wrong, of if something really is > broken. > > > thanks for the time, > ~Jason > > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=122672174517068&w=4 > >
Set PORTSDIR in mk.conf(5). Note that eg. for BSDSRCDIR it talks about the "real path". If you want to know why this is important, try: cd /some/symlink pwd /bin/pwd Most shells fake that "cd something && cd .." gets you back into the original directory, giving the illusion that symlinks are somehow "transparent". They are not, in fact, symlinks suck...
