Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote:
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
Here's the latest patch. I hope everything is correct.
BTW, do you want me to continue sending patches as attachment too? I
see that 'git send-email' doesn't so I guess you can grab the inline
patch or get it directly from git. Is that correct?
The way I handle this is to just send them directly with git send-email
using the "In reply to" value to keep the thread... um... threaded. Any
comments about the patch and what you have changed to fix things can go
under the "---" after the sign-off. Of course, you can inline them as
you have and push them to a git repo somewhere and we can just pull from
there.
Also, can you insert newlines into you commit message to keep them at
about 80 characters per line.
Signed-off-by: Eric Bélanger <[email protected]>
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index 92b0454..aaf576b 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
@@ -138,11 +138,17 @@ clean_up() {
if [ -n "$pkgbase" ]; then
# Can't do this unless the BUILDSCRIPT has been sourced.
rm -f
"${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-build.log"*
+ [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \
+ && rm -f
"${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}"
if [ "$PKGFUNC" -eq 1 ]; then
rm -f
"${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-package.log"*
+ [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \
+ && rm -f
"${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}"
elif [ "$SPLITPKG" -eq 1 ]; then
for pkg in ${pkgna...@]}; do
rm -f
"${pkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-package.log"*
+ [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \
+ && rm -f
"${pkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}"
done
fi
fi
I am not happy with this way of cleaning up the symlinks to packages.
If the package is not a split package, then the package name will be
$pkgname-... and not $pkgbase (although, they are likely the same
thing). I am also not sure what the second clean-up (in the "$PKGFUNC
-eq 1" test) is doing that has not already by the one above it.
However, thinking about this more, we do not remove old packages when
using --clean so why remove symlinks to old packages. Only when package
symlinks are pointing to packages that no longer exist in PKGDEST have
we made a mess that needs cleaned up. So how about something like:
for pkg in ${pkgna...@]}; do
for file in ${pkg}-*-*-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}; do
if [[ -h $file & ! -e $file ]]; then
rm -f $file
fi
done
fi
Everything else in the patch is fine.
Allan
