On 09/08/11 12:44, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:35:35AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 09/08/11 08:18, Dan McGee wrote:
commit 1a919a11b85cb882bf5e632036a9030e4a98aba0
Author: Dave Reisner<[email protected]>
Date: Mon Aug 8 17:20:53 2011 -0400
makepkg: ignore epoch when undeclared
In this case, we skip the epoch versioning entirely, as if it were
declared as 0.
Prevents errors such as:
/usr/bin/makepkg: line 244: ((: ! : syntax error: operand expected
(error token is " ")
==> Finished making: cower-git :20110808-1 (Mon Aug 8 17:17:27 EDT
2011)
Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner<[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee<[email protected]>
How do you ever get that?
# set defaults if they weren't specified in buildfile
pkgbase=${pkgbase:-${pkgname[0]}}
epoch=${epoch:-0}
So epoch should always be set... perhaps the real bug should be fixed.
Allan
Well, we're clearly inconsistant about it. I show some calls to
get_full_version returning epoch as 0 and some returning epoch as a null
string. It leads to a pkgver that's could possibly be something like
":20110808". Excerpts from my debugging:
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
EPOCH=|0|
FAKEROOTKEY=|1562776010|
==> Starting package()...
....stuff happens....
==> Creating package...
-> Generating .PKGINFO file...
EPOCH=||
FAKEROOTKEY=|1562776010|
/home/noclaf/src/c/pacman/scripts/makepkg: line 246: ((: ! : syntax
error: operand expected (error token is "! ")
-> Compressing package...
EPOCH=||
FAKEROOTKEY=|1562776010|
/home/noclaf/src/c/pacman/scripts/makepkg: line 246: ((: ! : syntax
error: operand expected (error token is "! ")
==> Leaving fakeroot environment.
EPOCH=|0|
FAKEROOTKEY=||
==> Finished making: cower-git 20110808-1 (Mon Aug 8 22:40:36 EDT 2011)
So is it fakeroot fucking with us here? Doesn't seem to be, but
somewhere along the line our epoch value is wrenched out from under us.
NB: (( ! $epoch )) isn't the same as (( ! epoch )). One expands to 0
when its unset and the other throws a syntax error.
Hmmm... that does look like it is getting lost when we go to fakeroot.
But then why have we never had issues with pkgbase doing the same? I
need to look into this further...
Allan
