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. but yes, 0 byte packages are odd. > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > > ~Jason
