Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:32:19 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile Message-ID: <4034ACD3.8010907@portaone.com> In-Reply-To: <20040219122529.GA12202@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200402191122.i1JBMdHd026435@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040219112932.GA11187@xor.obsecurity.org> <4034A2C4.7030501@portaone.com> <20040219115641.GA11791@xor.obsecurity.org> <4034A78F.9080702@portaone.com> <4034A883.80907@portaone.com> <20040219122529.GA12202@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:13:55PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
>
>>>>No, as I said, this is a supported configuration. Moreover, I'm sure
>>>>it's common for people to move their ports collection from /usr/ports
>>>>to some other location and replace it with a symlink (in fact I've
>>>>done that myself), and this works for all 10364 ports except yours,
>>>>prior to this commit.
>>>
>>>
>>>I still think that you aren't quite correct. You (and everyone who want
>>>to move /usr/ports over) should have set PORTSDIR to its real location
>>>(that is /a/ports in bento scripts), which would allow
>>>'${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR}/' in ports Makefiles instead of much uglier
>>>${WRKDIR}/../../../' (or eaquially ugly construct involving .CURDIR).
>>>The latter is worse because in this case it is impossible to put ports
>>>directory (e.g. asterisk in this case) anywhere in the file system not
>>>in the ${PORTSDIR} and have it building just fine, which is possible
>>>with the former. IMO, this is much common and useful feature than
>>>ability to move /usr/ports with the help of symlink.
>>
>>Also my version of behaviour is documented (ans has been for a long
>>time) as the One True Way[tm], so that I'd suggest you to fix bento scripts.
>>
>>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-wrkdirprefix.html
>
>
> That seems to be a bug in the documentation (note that it's internally
> inconsistent because it refers to both ${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR} and
> ${WRKDIRPREFIX}${.CURDIR} as the "correct" way to reference a port's
> ${WRKDIR} depending on whether that port is the current or another
> one).
No, there is no inconsistency, please read again. It only tells that if
you are defining your own WRKDIR in your port, you should define it as
catfoo/portbar/Makefile:
WRKDIR = ${WRKDIRPREFIX}${.CURDIR}/blablabla
This has nothing to do with reffering other ports.
> To repeat, 10364 ports don't have a problem with this policy that has
> been deliberately enforced by bento since before I came along. Your 1
> port did. The numbers are really not on your side for making a
> persuasive argument here, and I'm sure we both have better things to
> do with our time than to continue to debate it.
Only small fraction of all those 10364 ports reffer to other ports
WRKDIR (30-40 according to a quick greep), 3 of them correctly use
${WRKDIRPREFIX}${PORTSDIR}, all others probably were "fixed" to
workaround a broken assumption that bento makes.
Please fix bento instead of arguing obvious.
-Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4034ACD3.8010907>