On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:49:07PM +0200, Seblu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 12:56:41PM +0200, Sebastien Luttringer wrote: > >> Before this, cleaning is done when script exit with a value != 0. > >> If a build fail, directory remain unclean. The purpose of cleaning should > >> not be changed if build fail. > > > > I think this is intended behavior. One might want to investigate _why_ a > > build failed by looking in the $srcdir. > Someone who wants to investigate a build failure doesn't pass -c as argument ?
You're assuming that you know beforehand that the package will build correctly. For any non-vcs package, I almost always want to use `makepkg -risc'. > Same as you don't strip when you want to debug. > gcc -g toto.c -o toto; strip toto, have the same behaviour I don't think how this is analogous. The behavior we have with -c is more similar to: make && make install && make clean Note the conditional nature of this. > When you call "makepkg", it will fail and don't remove content to make > investigation. If you call "makepkg -c", i suppose, you want do clean > (even it fail). And as I mentioned above, you don't know that the package will be built successfully, but you want the build directory cleaned IFF it does build. > My idea was to be able to clean a directory without build package. > But i can implement something like -C which just clean content of the > current directory. >
