Hi,
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:10:17PM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:20:14AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > if(hash_local && hash_pkg && strcmp(hash_local, hash_pkg) == 0)
> > {
> > - /* local and new files are the same, no sense in
> > installing the file
> > - * over itself, regardless of what the original file
> > was */
> > - _alpm_log(handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG,
> > - "action: leaving existing file in
> > place\n");
> > - unlink(checkfile);
> > + /* local and new files are the same, updating anyway to
> > get
> > + * correct timestamps */
> > + _alpm_log(handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG, "action: installing
> > new file: %s\n",
>
> Perhaps this should be changed to something like:
> "action: updating existing file's timestamps\n"
> to differentiate it from when the file is actually new.
Probably true, I'll change it later.
>
> > + entryname_orig);
> > + if(try_rename(handle, checkfile, filename)) {
> > + errors++;
> > + }
>
> Can we not just ignore it if it fails since it is non-fatal?
If we ignore it we should at least add a debug/warning message if
it fails, I guess.
[snip]
> if(hash_local && hash_pkg && strcmp(hash_local, hash_pkg) == 0)
> {
> - /* local and new files are the same, no sense in
> installing the file
> - * over itself, regardless of what the original file
> was */
> + /* local and new files are the same, overwrite so that
> timestamps
> + * are maintained correctly for pacman -Qkk */
> _alpm_log(handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG,
> - "action: leaving existing file in
> place\n");
> - unlink(checkfile);
I don't think the checkfile should be unlinked here, should it?
It will certainly fail if you first unlink and afterwards try to
rename it.
Regards, Patrick
pgpMMCRWTc2JZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
