| 1 |
On 24/01/18 03:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24 Jan 2018 00:13, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> --- a/targets/stage3/stage3-preclean-chroot.sh |
| 4 |
>> +++ b/targets/stage3/stage3-preclean-chroot.sh |
| 5 |
>> @@ -11,7 +11,10 @@ cleanup_stages |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> if [ -n "${clst_DISTCC}" ] |
| 8 |
>> then |
| 9 |
>> - run_merge -C sys-devel/distcc || exit 1 |
| 10 |
>> + portageq match / sys-devel/distcc 2>&1 | grep -s -q distcc |
| 11 |
> just do a -n test on the output instead |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> although seems like portageq should be better with its exit status |
| 14 |
Thanks Mike - I did take a look at the portageq source code, but after |
| 15 |
consulting with Zac, we decided against changing exit codes at this |
| 16 |
time, to preserve the [minimal] existing return code behaviour. I agree, |
| 17 |
for this purpose, it would seem much more sensible, though, to simply |
| 18 |
have a grep-like exit code to test straight-off ... Added to FEATUREREQ ;) |
| 19 |
>> + if [ $? == 0 ]; then |
| 20 |
> use `[[` instead of `[` when writing bash, especially when using |
| 21 |
> bash code like "==". |
| 22 |
> -mike |
| 23 |
Ooops, I usually do double-brackets - the curse of late-night coding .. :D |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Michael. |
Archives