On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks mostly good, only one comment below.
d> Signed-off-by: Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com>
--- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 18 ++++++++++++------ scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 10 ++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 8d082a2..ed5cdef 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -518,7 +518,8 @@ download_sources() { local file=$(get_filepath "$netfile" || true) if [[ -n "$file" ]]; then msg2 "$(gettext "Found %s")" "${file##*/}" - ln -sf "$file" "$srcdir/" + rm -f "$srcdir/$file" + ln -s "$file" "$srcdir/" Is this behavior (specifying a directory for the link name) POSIX-compliant or guaranteed by anything except GNU ls?
No idea. It was already used in another place in makepkg.sh.in so I supposed that it was OK. If you want, I can resent the patch with the link name specified.
Well looking around, this whole bug report is a bit of BS, although we can easily work around this. -s and -f are both mandatory in the "latest", as of 2003, spec. [1] The same spec also indicates that this "target_dir" vs. "target_file" behavior is completely OK, so no need to fix this up unless we actually see problems in the wild. -Dan [1] http://www.unix.com/man-page/posix/1posix/ln/