| 1 |
On 06/16/2012 01:07 AM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Friday 15 June 2012 12:54:16 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when |
| 7 |
>>>>> no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed. |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> Why keep the "-f"? |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> For rm? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> -f, --force |
| 14 |
>>> ignore nonexistent files and arguments, never prompt |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> The second part is still valid. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> i think his point was that since you just did a [[ -f ]] test, there shouldn't |
| 19 |
>> really be any cases where the rm would fail, so you could change the `rm -f` |
| 20 |
>> to `rm || die` ... |
| 21 |
>> -mike |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Just because you tested doesn't make the race go away; its not like |
| 24 |
> the fs has locks. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
This is in $D though, right? There shouldn't be anything going on in |
| 27 |
there concurrently unless the ebuild itself is doing it with something |
| 28 |
like multiprocessing.eclass, and in that case it's the ebuild's |
| 29 |
responsibility to avoid interfering with itself. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives