On Wednesday, September 2, 2009, Pierre Schmitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch 02 September 2009 01:05:04 schrieb Allan McRae: >> Pierre Schmitz wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I would file a bug report but somehow... >> > >> > It seems makepkg -i just throws a warning if it cannot install the >> > package after build. I would prefer if it would at least return something >> > different from 0. >> > >> > My scripts assume that everything is fine if makepkg retuns 0 and an >> > inter package file conflict wasn't noticed due to the behaviour that >> > makepkg did return 0 even if something went wrong. >> >> Hmmm... there was a bug report that was the opposite. >> >> The reasoning here is that makepkg did not fail, rather pacman failed to >> install the successfully built package. The same occurs when pacman >> fails to remove deps as asked by makepkg. >> >> Allan > > Well, makepkg -i is makepkg+pacman and one of those fails the whole thing > should fail, too. I only ask for the correct return value; makepkg does not > need to abort etc.. The point is that the current implementation makes the -i > useless for scripting because you cannot check if the install failed or not. > > -- > > Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Why use -i at all then? Since you want to check the install, shouldn't that be a seperate step in your script? E.g. Run makepkg, check for a 0 return, then run pacman and check for a 0 return. -Dan
