| Message ID | 20170915183052.2848-2-ivy.foster@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [pacman-dev,v2,1/2] makepkg: implement error codes | expand |
On 15.09.2017 20:30, ivy.foster@gmail.com wrote: > - error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. This option is only for use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" > + error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. This option is only for internal use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" This seems like a very straight forward change. It's generally better if you commit less invasive/more likely to be merged changes first so that they can be merged more easily. Right now this patch should raise a merge conflict if merged without the first one because of the changed exit line. You also won't have to carry it along each time you make a change to the more complex patch. In case you've never done this before: Committing like this can be done rather easily if you have all the changes in your working directory and then use `git add -pi`. When it asks you to stage the hunk, you can edit the diff and take out the exit code change and then stage only the error message. Then commit and make a second commit for the rest. Obviously you could also just commit it afterwards, perform an interactive rebase to reorder the history and then fix the conflicts, but I generally follow the above approach when I have small fixes that come up during creation of a larger patch. It also ensures that `git diff` is usable during development and I don't have to track the possibility of performing that change afterwards so I can't forget it. Also what's done is done. Florian
Florian Pritz via pacman-dev <pacman-dev@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 15.09.2017 20:30, ivy.foster@gmail.com wrote: > > - error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. \ > > This option is only for use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" > > + error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. \ > > This option is only for internal use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" > > This seems like a very straight forward change. It's generally better if > you commit less invasive/more likely to be merged changes first so that > they can be merged more easily. That makes a lot of sense. > In case you've never done this before: [snip] That's very handy! Thanks, Florian. iff
Florian Pritz via pacman-dev <pacman-dev@archlinux.org> wrote: > This seems like a very straight forward change. It's generally better if > you commit less invasive/more likely to be merged changes first so that > they can be merged more easily. I've just sent a version of this patch that does not depend on the makepkg errors patch. Revised makepkg errors patch to follow. iff
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index a8a8eb41..953c43fb 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -1442,7 +1442,7 @@ catastrophic damage to your system.")" "makepkg" fi else if [[ -z $FAKEROOTKEY ]]; then - error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. This option is only for use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" + error "$(gettext "Do not use the %s option. This option is only for internal use by %s.")" "'-F'" "makepkg" exit $E_INVALID_OPTION fi fi
From: Ivy Foster <ivy.foster@gmail.com> --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)