On 13/08/11 04:34, Seblu wrote:
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 ?
Is it really necessary? "rm -rf pkg/ src/" does the job...
Allan
