Subject: Re: build.sh and -U confusion
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@NetBSD.org>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <email@example.com>
Date: 08/15/2005 16:11:14
In message <20050815195600.GB25575@netbsd.org>, Bill Studenmund writes:
>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.
Hmm -- if you're running as non-root, create the metalog; when
installing, use the metalog if it exists. -U will create the metalog
even if running as root.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb