On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > 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...
ok -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
