On Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:28:47 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/09/2017 02:00 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Under what circumstances? > > > > ... > > > > Seems like it is not possible to generate the above permission issue. > > I can make them up all day...
I cannot find the exact comment, but I recall being told before || die used
along with rm -f was incorrect or something along those lines.
Case in point dev-db/firebird use to have a line like
rm -rf "${S}"/extern/{btyacc,editline,icu} || die
But if you look at current ebuild it is now
rm -r "${S}"/extern/{btyacc,editline,icu} || die
The force option/argument was dropped. Why? Seems it could have remained.
Which is why I commented, as I am pretty sure that has been said to me before.
Essentially do not use -f with || die or something to that effect. Maybe for
different reasoning. Still one of those things I never liked. Do it this way,
for this reason, that is not documented. Others may digress and leads to
confusion.
> * VENDOR_PATH=VENDORPN="" and we try to "rm -rf /"
That would likely be an incorrect ebuild and should not have been committed to
tree.
> * A hard drive error occurs.
Likely have much greater issues than rm failing, not sure || die or the rest
would work in that case.
> * Bad memory crashes "rm".
Same as above, if rm is crashing due to memory issues, you likely have serious
issues. I doubt portage would continue on, or the system, etc.
> * Somebody is running a recursive chmod on /var/tmp during emerge.
That sounds like user error if doing updates etc on a system others are
administrating at the same time. I would put that in the stupid category.
Plus doing such would likely cause problems for other things that use that
directory if not portage entirely.
> * The tarball contains something you don't expect and can't delete.
Why would that package be added to tree, or a developer be working with
something blindly?
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
