Eric Bélanger wrote:
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.
Yes they should.
Allan
