On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:49:07PM +0200, Seblu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 12:56:41PM +0200, Sebastien Luttringer wrote:
Before this, cleaning is done when script exit with a value != 0. If a build fail, directory remain unclean. The purpose of cleaning should not be changed if build fail.
I think this is intended behavior. One might want to investigate _why_ a build failed by looking in the $srcdir. Someone who wants to investigate a build failure doesn't pass -c as argument ?
You're assuming that you know beforehand that the package will build correctly. For any non-vcs package, I almost always want to use `makepkg -risc'.
Same as you don't strip when you want to debug. gcc -g toto.c -o toto; strip toto, have the same behaviour
I don't think how this is analogous. The behavior we have with -c is more similar to: make && make install && make clean Note the conditional nature of this.
When you call "makepkg", it will fail and don't remove content to make investigation. If you call "makepkg -c", i suppose, you want do clean (even it fail).
And as I mentioned above, you don't know that the package will be built successfully, but you want the build directory cleaned IFF it does build.
My idea was to be able to clean a directory without build package. But i can implement something like -C which just clean content of the current directory.