On 27/06/11 06:07, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Bélanger<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Dan McGee<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Eric Bélanger<[email protected]> wrote:
Looks mostly good, only one comment below.
d> Signed-off-by: Eric Bélanger<[email protected]>
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 18 ++++++++++++------
scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 10 ++++++----
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index 8d082a2..ed5cdef 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
@@ -518,7 +518,8 @@ download_sources() {
local file=$(get_filepath "$netfile" || true)
if [[ -n "$file" ]]; then
msg2 "$(gettext "Found %s")" "${file##*/}"
- ln -sf "$file" "$srcdir/"
+ rm -f "$srcdir/$file"
+ ln -s "$file" "$srcdir/"
Is this behavior (specifying a directory for the link name)
POSIX-compliant or guaranteed by anything except GNU ls?
No idea. It was already used in another place in makepkg.sh.in so I
supposed that it was OK. If you want, I can resent the patch with the
link name specified.
Well looking around, this whole bug report is a bit of BS, although we
can easily work around this. -s and -f are both mandatory in the
"latest", as of 2003, spec. [1] The same spec also indicates that this
"target_dir" vs. "target_file" behavior is completely OK, so no need
to fix this up unless we actually see problems in the wild.
-Dan
[1] http://www.unix.com/man-page/posix/1posix/ln/
I'll ack the patch as is. Removing the "-f" usage in ln is a small
burden if we have people who actually want to use old shitty versions of
these tools. Any further issues can be fixed later (preferably by the
people experiencing the problems).
Allan
