Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:13:45 +0000 (UTC) From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap Message-ID: <loom.20121119T205151-593@post.gmane.org> References: <loom.20121119T160541-423@post.gmane.org> <20121119155141.46107723@gumby.homeunix.com> <loom.20121119T170555-865@post.gmane.org> <20121119192000.0e2abfab@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW <rwmaillists <at> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20121119T205151-593>