On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: > Dan McGee wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Jürgen Hötzel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I doubt this was by intention: >>>> >>>> errors in build() functions are only fatal, if "--log" is enabled. >>>> I just made a buggy pkg because some "install ..." commands >>>> where not handled by "|| return 1". >>>> >>>> Our PKGBUILDs are cluttert full of "|| return 1". Failing commands in >>>> build functions should always result in an build error. >>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Hoetzel <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 7 ++++--- >>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >>>> index f46b7f8..84d4599 100644 >>>> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >>>> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >>>> @@ -703,6 +703,7 @@ run_build() { >>>> local ret=0 >>>> if [ "$LOGGING" -eq 1 ]; then >>>> >>>> >>>> BUILDLOG="${startdir}/${pkgbase}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}-build.log" >>>> + BUILDLOG_CMD="tee $BUILDLOG" >>>> if [ -f "$BUILDLOG" ]; then >>>> local i=1 >>>> while true; do >>>> @@ -714,11 +715,11 @@ run_build() { >>>> done >>>> mv "$BUILDLOG" "$BUILDLOG.$i" >>>> fi >>>> - >>>> - build 2>&1 | tee "$BUILDLOG"; ret=${PIPESTATUS[0]} >>>> else >>>> - build 2>&1 || ret=$? >>>> + BUILDLOG_CMD="cat -" >>>> fi >>>> + >>>> + build 2>&1 | ${BUILDLOG_CMD}; ret=${PIPESTATUS[0]} >>>> # reset our shell options >>>> eval "$shellopts" >>>> >>> >>> Seems fine. We will want to do the "cat -" thing in run_package too to >>> catch packaging errors. In fact, as the tee mechanism is so different >>> there, we will need to check that it actually catches errors... >>> >> >> Should I wait to apply this then, or take it for now and wait for another >> patch? >> > > I like to keep the run_build and run_package functions as similar as > possible (one day I might get around to refactoring them... especially as I > want to add run_check it the future). So I would prefer to wait until this > is fix for both functions in as similar way as possible.
Address this before 3.3? We never got a resubmit. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
