On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. ok do you think a -C which clean inconditionnaly and let -c clean when success ?
Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
