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.