On Thursday 31 May 2012 01:46:41 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:19:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 28 May 2012 03:58:56 Michał Górny wrote: > > > +# @USAGE: [all] > > > > this is incorrect. the usage is: > > <all | files to remove> > > No, it's perfectly valid. Moreover, it even explains what the function > actually does rather than your imagination.
why are you so angry all the time ? try being less confrontational for once.
going from the usage:
remove_libtool_files [all]
that means this may be called in only two ways:
1) remove_libtool_files
2) remove_libtool_files all
yet, if you read the actual code, you'll see:
+ [[ ${#} -le 1 ]] || die "Invalid number of args to ${FUNCNAME}()"
+ if [[ ${#} -eq 1 ]]; then
+ ...
+ fi
that means if more than 1 argument is passed, no error is thrown. i thought
you were intending to parse $@ further on because of it (hence the suggestion
of updating the @USAGE), but it looks merely like your arg parsing is
incorrect and needs fixing. probably easiest by doing:
case $#:$1 in
0:'') ;;
1:all) removing_all=1 ;;
*) die "invalid usage" ;;
esac
> > although, since we don't call die or anything, we can pipeline it to
> > speed things up a bit:
> > pc_libs=( $(
> > tpc="${T}/.pc"
> > find "${D}" -name '*.pc' -type f | \
> > while read pc ; do
> > sed -e '/^Requires:/d' "${pc}" > "${tpc}"
> > $(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --libs "${tpc}"
> > done | tr ' ' '\n' | sort -u | \
> > sed -n '/^-l/{s:^-l:lib:;s:$:.la:;p}'
> > rm -f "${tpc}"
> > ) )
>
> Could you remind me, please, what performance-critical use of this
> function does justify making it so harsh?
looks perfectly fine to me, and it has the bonus of working
> > > + rm -f "${archivefile}" || die
> >
> > `rm -f` almost never fails. in the edge cases where it does, you've
> > got bigger problems.
>
> And that problem is good enough to die here.
more like the system at large is going to be falling over independently
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
