package check
Re: package check
That's why it should ask first. I know these rare casesgapan wrote:Because there are cases where these are actually the correct ownerships.
Re: package check
Good idea thenktor !
Re: package check
I don't want buildscripts to become interactive. It's annoying when you're off for half an hour and it stops already after 10 minutes with a prompt, just to go on another 10 min afterwards.
It would be OK for me to have aggressive corrections on per default and to have an option to disable them. But there's a point where SLKBUILDs take away too much control from the packager and becomes bloated. So I'm a bit uncertain if we should at all change this behaviour.
It would be OK for me to have aggressive corrections on per default and to have an option to disable them. But there's a point where SLKBUILDs take away too much control from the packager and becomes bloated. So I'm a bit uncertain if we should at all change this behaviour.
Re: package check
I believe that we should not change that. Too much automation is bad. Prompts are a bad idea in my opinion. What if a package has hundreds of those files? Will you answer as many prompts? If the makefiles are bad and install files with wrong ownerships, then you should either: 1) correct the makefiles (and probably alert their developer) and/or 2) fix the ownerships in build().
Re: package check
OK, i'm convinced. Don't change slkbuild for this.