Janning Vygen
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:26:27 -0800
Am Freitag, 8. Dezember 2006 16:48 schrieben Sie: > > > > - some -k/--keep option (which I'd rather call --keep-permissions :-) > [...] > If a file permission get borked it will never be fixed by an softupdate. you don't need to use the -k (keep-permissions) option, so spftupdate can fix it. But why should it be broken anyway? > In the case that it's not root:root 644 it has in most cases a special > reason. If the file is missing there noting to preserve, what to use then? then use -M, -m or source file permissions as it is right now. > [...] > > i tried to use exit code, too: > [...] > > > this way you can say > > > > fcopy ... /etc/postgresql && /etc/init.d/postgresql restart || exit 1; > > > > What do you think about using exit codes? First i sort it's not unix > > like, but diff does like this, too. > > Add $? to your prompt and you'll see that much more apps do it like this ;) > So both methods can coexists with file list turned on (or off) with a file > an option. i switched this behaviour now after some tests. My patched fcopy now returns 0 if no files were changed or 1 if files were changed. I changed because if fcopy returns exit code 1 when nothing was changed it was propagated as the script exit code. But i am still not sure what is nicer, to return exit code 1 if files were changed or return exit code 1 if files were NOT changed. kind regards janning