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