Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> 2009/11/3 Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> >> >> This is really convenient, but would it not be good if the >> symlink(s) are >> removed upon --clean? >> >> >> >> >> > Sure, that can be easily done. > > > > I'm not sure if removing the symlinks if --clean is used is a good idea after all. After a successful build, you would probably want to have the package's symlink to be still there so you can test/install the package.
I agree that keeping the current symlink is good, but then do you have to remove old symlinks manually? I think this is a situation with no best answer, but removing symlinks on --clean may be the better one.
I've haven't thought about old symlinks. I'll remove them on --clean.
And here is another thought I just had. Do we want to error out if the symlinnk creation fails but the building of the package is successful? Or jsut print a warning?
Maybe a warning would be better.
I added a warning. BTW, should the tar_file and pkg_file be local variables? I'll submit anew patch once I get an answer.
Yes they should.
Allan
Here's the latest patch. I hope everything is correct.
BTW, do you want me to continue sending patches as attachment too? I see that 'git send-email' doesn't so I guess you can grab the inline patch or get it directly from git. Is that correct?
The way I handle this is to just send them directly with git send-email using the "In reply to" value to keep the thread... um... threaded. Any comments about the patch and what you have changed to fix things can go under the "---" after the sign-off. Of course, you can inline them as you have and push them to a git repo somewhere and we can just pull from there. Also, can you insert newlines into you commit message to keep them at about 80 characters per line.
Signed-off-by: Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 92b0454..aaf576b 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -138,11 +138,17 @@ clean_up() { if [ -n "$pkgbase" ]; then # Can't do this unless the BUILDSCRIPT has been sourced. rm -f "${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-build.log"* + [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \ + && rm -f "${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}" if [ "$PKGFUNC" -eq 1 ]; then rm -f "${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-package.log"* + [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \ + && rm -f "${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}" elif [ "$SPLITPKG" -eq 1 ]; then for pkg in ${pkgname[@]}; do rm -f "${pkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-package.log"* + [[ "$PKGDEST" != "${startdir}" ]] \ + && rm -f "${pkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}" done fi fi
I am not happy with this way of cleaning up the symlinks to packages. If the package is not a split package, then the package name will be $pkgname-... and not $pkgbase (although, they are likely the same thing). I am also not sure what the second clean-up (in the "$PKGFUNC -eq 1" test) is doing that has not already by the one above it. However, thinking about this more, we do not remove old packages when using --clean so why remove symlinks to old packages. Only when package symlinks are pointing to packages that no longer exist in PKGDEST have we made a mess that needs cleaned up. So how about something like: for pkg in ${pkgname[@]}; do for file in ${pkg}-*-*-${CARCH}${PKGEXT}; do if [[ -h $file & ! -e $file ]]; then rm -f $file fi done fi Everything else in the patch is fine. Allan