| 1 |
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:28:47 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/09/2017 02:00 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Under what circumstances? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > ... |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Seems like it is not possible to generate the above permission issue. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I can make them up all day... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I cannot find the exact comment, but I recall being told before || die used |
| 12 |
along with rm -f was incorrect or something along those lines. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Case in point dev-db/firebird use to have a line like |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
rm -rf "${S}"/extern/{btyacc,editline,icu} || die |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But if you look at current ebuild it is now |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
rm -r "${S}"/extern/{btyacc,editline,icu} || die |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The force option/argument was dropped. Why? Seems it could have remained. |
| 23 |
Which is why I commented, as I am pretty sure that has been said to me before. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Essentially do not use -f with || die or something to that effect. Maybe for |
| 26 |
different reasoning. Still one of those things I never liked. Do it this way, |
| 27 |
for this reason, that is not documented. Others may digress and leads to |
| 28 |
confusion. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> * VENDOR_PATH=VENDORPN="" and we try to "rm -rf /" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
That would likely be an incorrect ebuild and should not have been committed to |
| 33 |
tree. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> * A hard drive error occurs. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Likely have much greater issues than rm failing, not sure || die or the rest |
| 38 |
would work in that case. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> * Bad memory crashes "rm". |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Same as above, if rm is crashing due to memory issues, you likely have serious |
| 43 |
issues. I doubt portage would continue on, or the system, etc. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> * Somebody is running a recursive chmod on /var/tmp during emerge. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
That sounds like user error if doing updates etc on a system others are |
| 48 |
administrating at the same time. I would put that in the stupid category. |
| 49 |
Plus doing such would likely cause problems for other things that use that |
| 50 |
directory if not portage entirely. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> * The tarball contains something you don't expect and can't delete. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Why would that package be added to tree, or a developer be working with |
| 55 |
something blindly? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives