On 02/26/2018 05:14 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:46:48 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
+++ b/db-functions @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ arch_repo_add() { # package files might be relative to repo dir pushd "${FTP_BASE}/${repo}/os/${arch}" >/dev/null /usr/bin/repo-add -q "${repo}${DBEXT}" ${pkgs[@]} \ - || error "repo-add ${repo}${DBEXT} ${pkgs[@]}" + || error 'repo-add %q %s' "${repo}${DBEXT}" "${pkgs[*]@Q}" popd >/dev/null set_repo_permission "${repo}" "${arch}"
@@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ arch_repo_remove() { return 1 fi /usr/bin/repo-remove -q "${dbfile}" ${pkgs[@]} \ - || error "repo-remove ${dbfile} ${pkgs[@]}" + || error 'repo-remove %q %s' "$dbfile" "${pkgs[*]@Q}" set_repo_permission "${repo}" "${arch}"
I think for consistency we should use the same style which means using "${dbfile@Q}"
I was going for consistency with the repo-add version, which doesn't have a single dbfile variable to @Q. Would you have me introduce a dbfile variable in arch_repo_add?
Well, we basically use it hardcoded three times, so why not. :p Just like the repo-add version, except with pushd "${dbfile%/*}" Actually, this decreases the difference between the two enough that we may want to just have one call the other... or do this: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/2018-February/004832.htm... -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User