make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

Antoine Jacoutot-7
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

Todd T. Fries-2
YES PLEASE. ok todd@

Penned by Antoine Jacoutot on 20130515 15:08.47, we have:
| 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

--
Todd Fries .. [hidden email]

 ____________________________________________
|                                            \  1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting, LLC                \  1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com            \  1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| PO Box 16169, Oklahoma City, OK 73113      \  sip:[hidden email]
| "..in support of free software solutions." \  sip:[hidden email]
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
                                                 
              37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D  B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
                        http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

patrick keshishian
In reply to this post by Antoine Jacoutot-7
Hi,

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[hidden email]> 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.

:-)

I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested
setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is
symlinked to.

I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason
setting PORTSDIR does not work?

--patrick


> 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
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

Antoine Jacoutot-7
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:21:52PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> :-)
>
> I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested
> setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is
> symlinked to.
>
> I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason
> setting PORTSDIR does not work?

Setting PORTSDIR works, but is not the point of this diff.


>
> --patrick
>
>
> > 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
> >

--
Antoine

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

patrick keshishian
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Antoine Jacoutot
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:21:52PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested
>> setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is
>> symlinked to.
>>
>> I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason
>> setting PORTSDIR does not work?
>
> Setting PORTSDIR works, but is not the point of this diff.

I'm not trying to argue with you or the diff. As I said, I have those
lines removed in my local copy of that file as well.

I don't know the history, or the why of those some (or a couple) ports
which break if /usr/ports (or more correctly $PORTSDIR) is a symlink.
However, my question was (and remains): Why not simply set PORTSDIR to
the actual directory /usr/ports points to and not hassle with fixing
or risk any ports that might break?

--patrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

Antoine Jacoutot-7
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:12:48PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Antoine Jacoutot
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:21:52PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[hidden email]> 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.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested
> >> setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is
> >> symlinked to.
> >>
> >> I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason
> >> setting PORTSDIR does not work?
> >
> > Setting PORTSDIR works, but is not the point of this diff.
>
> I'm not trying to argue with you or the diff. As I said, I have those
> lines removed in my local copy of that file as well.
>
> I don't know the history, or the why of those some (or a couple) ports
> which break if /usr/ports (or more correctly $PORTSDIR) is a symlink.
> However, my question was (and remains): Why not simply set PORTSDIR to
> the actual directory /usr/ports points to and not hassle with fixing
> or risk any ports that might break?

Because it's annoying ;-)
Doing 'ln -s /path/to/ports /usr/ports' should just work (and it did for years).
And because muscle memory looks for /usr/ports.

--
Antoine

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

patrick keshishian
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Antoine Jacoutot
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:12:48PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Antoine Jacoutot
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:21:52PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <[hidden email]> 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.
>> >>
>> >> :-)
>> >>
>> >> I had this diff locally, and got "yelled" at by espie@. He suggested
>> >> setting PORTSDIR to point to the actual directory /usr/ports is
>> >> symlinked to.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not against your proposal, but curious if there is any reason
>> >> setting PORTSDIR does not work?
>> >
>> > Setting PORTSDIR works, but is not the point of this diff.
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue with you or the diff. As I said, I have those
>> lines removed in my local copy of that file as well.
>>
>> I don't know the history, or the why of those some (or a couple) ports
>> which break if /usr/ports (or more correctly $PORTSDIR) is a symlink.
>> However, my question was (and remains): Why not simply set PORTSDIR to
>> the actual directory /usr/ports points to and not hassle with fixing
>> or risk any ports that might break?
>
> Because it's annoying ;-)

I agree.

> Doing 'ln -s /path/to/ports /usr/ports' should just work (and it did for years).
> And because muscle memory looks for /usr/ports.

that's why i have /usr/ports as a symlink, and PORTSDIR set to what it
points to in /etc/mk.conf. so I can "cd /usr/ports/math/gnuplot &&
make build" per usual.

OK. you answered my question: no other reason than it being an
unnecessary check.

Cheers,
--patrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: make it possible to have /usr/ports as symlink

Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse-2
In reply to this post by Antoine Jacoutot-7
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.