On 06/16/2012 01:07 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mike Frysinger <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 15 June 2012 12:54:16 Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>>> On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when
>>>>> no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
>>>> Why keep the "-f"?
>>> For rm?
>>> -f, --force
>>> ignore nonexistent files and arguments, never prompt
>>> The second part is still valid.
>> i think his point was that since you just did a [[ -f ]] test, there shouldn't
>> really be any cases where the rm would fail, so you could change the `rm -f`
>> to `rm || die` ...
> Just because you tested doesn't make the race go away; its not like
> the fs has locks.
This is in $D though, right? There shouldn't be anything going on in
there concurrently unless the ebuild itself is doing it with something
like multiprocessing.eclass, and in that case it's the ebuild's
responsibility to avoid interfering with itself.