Subject: Re: and -U confusion
To: Matthias Scheler <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/15/2005 12:56:00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:
> >=20
> > 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.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)