1 |
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:14:02 -0800 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 11/09/2015 09:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > --- |
6 |
> > bin/phase-helpers.sh | 4 ++++ |
7 |
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > diff --git a/bin/phase-helpers.sh b/bin/phase-helpers.sh |
10 |
> > index 2fea0b2..bd4e999 100644 |
11 |
> > --- a/bin/phase-helpers.sh |
12 |
> > +++ b/bin/phase-helpers.sh |
13 |
> > @@ -1070,6 +1070,10 @@ fi |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > if ___eapi_has_eapply_user; then |
16 |
> > eapply_user() { |
17 |
> > + local tagfile=${T}/.portage_user_patches_applied |
18 |
> > + [[ -f ${tagfile} ]] && return |
19 |
> > + touch "${tagfile}" |
20 |
> > + |
21 |
> > local basedir=${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT%/}/etc/portage/patches |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > local d applied |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Instead of touch, we can use >> "${tagfile}" to get equivalent results |
27 |
> with pure bash. It shaves of a few cpu cycles, and we've actually had |
28 |
> issues with touch breakage in the past: |
29 |
> |
30 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348640 |
31 |
|
32 |
Was thinking about it but assumed 'touch' would be easier to |
33 |
understand. If it has caused trouble in the past, I'm all for using |
34 |
pure bash instead. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Best regards, |
38 |
Michał Górny |
39 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |