On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:08:47PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Some time ago espie@ added a check to make sure that /usr/ports was not a
> symlink because this could break a couple (or 3?) ports.
> I hate that restriction.
> Last time I talked to him he said that chromium needed to be fixed because it
> was one of the outstanding ports that would not build with a symlinked
> /usr/ports.
>
> Well I just reverted the diff and chromium built fine with /usr/ports ->
> /home/cvs/openbsd/ports today.
> So I am proposing to revert the diff and if any other port breaks because of
> this, I volunteer to fix it/them; I just find the restriction stupid.
> Sometimes it is good to adapt the infrastructure for broken stuffs, but here
> it makes no sense especially if we are talking about a couple of ports.
>
> comments/ok?
>
>
> Index: bsd.port.mk
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.1224
> diff -u -r1.1224 bsd.port.mk
> --- bsd.port.mk 14 May 2013 13:38:59 -0000 1.1224
> +++ bsd.port.mk 15 May 2013 20:03:33 -0000
> @@ -2401,11 +2401,6 @@
>
> ${_WRKDIR_COOKIE}:
> @rm -rf ${WRKDIR}
> - @if test -h ${PORTSDIR}; then \
> - echo 1>&2 "Fatal: ${PORTSDIR} is a symlink."; \
> - echo 1>&2 "Please point PORTSDIR to the real directory (in
> /etc/mk.conf)"; \
> - exit 1; \
> - fi
> .if ${PORTS_BUILD_XENOCARA_TOO:L} != "yes"
> @appdefaults=${LOCALBASE}/lib/X11/app-defaults; \
> if ! test -d $$appdefaults -a -h $$appdefaults; then \
>
> --
> Antoine
Totally OK with me (although I'll run a bulk with it just to be sure). No
reason to facilitate broken ports in the framework.
