On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:17:07PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > 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.
Fair enough.
>
> [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.
>
Of course. I think you're reading the diff wrong. The unlink is
*replaced* with a rename in the new code.
Regards
--
Ross Lagerwall
