Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Wiebel2001@t-online.de (Wiebel)
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Downloading while compiling - FETCHCOMMAND inside.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:37:52
Message-Id: 20040330023732.10286867.Michael.Waiblinger@web.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Downloading while compiling - FETCHCOMMAND inside. by Roman Gaufman
1 ok my point wasn't prozilla this could easily changed to FETCHPROG=wget or whatever you prefer. Due to the fakt I'm not working with && after the fetching you also are not to remove the lockfile even if the $FETCHPROG returnes with a failure. But after all it's simply a question of your personal preferences. My main point was, that a lockfile is not to contain any data at all, for my taste it only should be a empty file as a token of aktivity.
2
3
4 On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:35:31 +0000
5 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@×××××××××.com> wrote:
6
7 > Well, that also works I suppose, I just don't like prozilla. In anycase with
8 > your solution if for the first URL you get file not found, or any other fetch
9 > error, you will need to remove lock file manually, you don't have that
10 > problem with my solution.
11 >
12 > On Monday 29 March 2004 18:10, Wiebel wrote:
13 > > My understanding of a lockfile seems to be different from your's so i'd
14 > > come up with something like:
15 > >
16 > >
17 > > FETCHPROG=proz
18 > > FETCHCOMMAND="(
19 > > while [ -e \${DISTDIR}/`basename \${URI}`.lock ]; do
20 > > sleep 5; done &&
21 > > if [ ! -e \${DISTDIR}/`basename \${URI}` ]; then
22 > > touch \${DISTDIR}/`basename \${URI}`.lock;
23 > > \$FETCHPROG \${URI};
24 > > rm \${DISTDIR}/`basename \${URI}`.lock;
25 > > fi
26 > > )"
27 > >
28 > > in this case error handling remains on the FETCHPROG side.
29 > >
30 > >
31 > >
32
33 --
34 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies