From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 20:14:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE57D23 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:14:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE15B8FC14 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TaXjN-0005V7-F4 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:14:11 +0100 Received: from 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl ([79.139.19.75]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:14:09 +0100 Received: from jb.1234abcd by 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:14:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: jb Subject: Re: portsnap Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:13:45 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <20121119155141.46107723@gumby.homeunix.com> <20121119192000.0e2abfab@gumby.homeunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:14:05 -0000 RW googlemail.com> writes: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:10:48 +0000 (UTC) > jb wrote: > > > > You gave portsnap two commands - one succeeded and the other failed. Nope. I gave ONE command: 'portsnap fetch update'. > > But this looks like a flaky entry validation - it should be rejected > > up front as invalid entry, even if it applied to the second part - > > "update". Because the effect of processing the entire entry "fetch" > > plus "update" is lost anyway. > > Not isn't, you've brought the snapshot up to date. Well, yes. But as I already explained, there was ONE command. If I wanted to be satisfied with two command outcomes, even if logically linked by sequential execution, then I would do: # portsnap fetch; portsnap update There is a subtle, but important difference. In general, if I wanted to check for command completion code, which is quite common in UNIX CLI or scripting env, it would make a lot of difference if a command failed half way in both cases: 'portsnap fetch update; check-completion-code' and 'portsnap fetch; check-completion-code; portsnap update; check-completion-code' jb