On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Pierre Schmitz<[email protected]> wrote: > Am Donnerstag 03 September 2009 00:02:03 schrieb Dan McGee: >> 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. > > Sure, that simple to implement, that's not my point. I just thought this might > not be right in makepkg.
I can see both sides here, so I have nothing to add, really. The return of makepkg, to me, indicates that "makepkg failed", not "something failed". However, if installation of the package actually fails, it _might_ be synonymous with "this package is borked" which would, in turn, indicate a makepkg issue.
