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 |