On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> Eric Bélanger wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Ray Rashif <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2009/11/3 Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> This is really convenient, but would it not be good if the >>>>> symlink(s) are >>>>> removed upon --clean? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, that can be easily done. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure if removing the symlinks if --clean is used is a good >>> idea after all. After a successful build, you would probably want to >>> have the package's symlink to be still there so you can test/install >>> the package. >>> >> >> I agree that keeping the current symlink is good, but then do you have to >> remove old symlinks manually? I think this is a situation with no best >> answer, but removing symlinks on --clean may be the better one. > > I've haven't thought about old symlinks. I'll remove them on --clean. > >> >> And here is another thought I just had. Do we want to error out if the >> symlinnk creation fails but the building of the package is successful? Or >> jsut print a warning? >> > > Maybe a warning would be better. >
I added a warning. BTW, should the tar_file and pkg_file be local variables? I'll submit anew patch once I get an answer.
