Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Hello Allen,
the prototype has a little problem in case you give -L option to makepkg
as it is now:
As makepkg pipes the output of the build-function into tee, the
build-function gets executed in a sub-shell. Any changes of variables in
context of main-shell from inside build-function will not work in that
case. This leads to that we have to set the values of all
split-package-variables outside of the respective build-functions.
As I said, the implementation is still a bit away... The KDEmod guys
override the PKGBUILD variables the same way. I will look into what they
for logging.
Testing with this script indicates to me that everything is fine...
test.sh:
#! /bin/bash
output="FOO"
build() {
output="BAR"
echo $output
}
echo $output
build 2>&1
build 2>&1 | tee buildlog
./test.sh
FOO
BAR
BAR
cat buildlog
BAR
So what exactly are you say is wrong?
I think the case he means is this:
test.sh:
#! /bin/bash
output="FOO"
build() {
output="BAR"
echo $output
}
echo $output
build 2>&1 | tee buildlog
echo $output
# end
./test.sh
FOO
BAR
FOO
Which, after thinking a little about it, is the way we want this to happen, yes?
I think, yes it is. From the KDEmod implementation, in the case where
we are not logging (and hence no tee) we need to revert the variables to
what they were before calling the build function.
Anyway, this will all become more apparent as I finish implementing it
(with heavy borrowing for all the patches floating around). The
implementation can be a bit more complex to accommodate a simpler
PKGBUILD as far as I am concerned. Few people look at makepkg, many
look at PKGBUILDs.
Allan
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
