Subject: Re: build.sh and -U confusion
To: Matthias Scheler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 08/15/2005 12:56:00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 09:08:05PM +0100, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 03:33:33PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > > Good idea. What about this:
> > do you mean all 3, or choose 1?
> All 3.
> > for install, or refuses if the existence of the metalog and the -U
> > flag don't sense. I'm a bit leery of making such decisions
> > automatically, but fine with failing if they are wrong.
> If it can reliably detect the error it can also avoid it.
The problem I see is that with a brand new destdir, there will be no=20
metalog. So we would move from using command-line arguements to having to=
touch or not touch a file to get a behavior.
I think options 1 & 2 from the original list are great for installs. For=20
building, though, if you set -U, you should get an unprived build. Builds=
w/o -U but with a metalog erroring out would be fine too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----