FS#20922 - [makepkg] Symbolic link in a loop when running `PKGDEST="." makepkg`

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by jackoneill (jackoneill) - Thursday, 23 September 2010, 14:20 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 08 October 2010, 13:05 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category makepkg
Status Closed
Assigned To Allan McRae (Allan)
Architecture All
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.4.1
Due in Version 3.5.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Summary and Info:

Just this once I wanted the .tar.xz to be in the current directory, so I ran:
PKGDEST="." makepkg
and this is the result:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 foo foo 43 Sep 23 16:58 mplayer-mt-git-20100923-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz -> ./mplayer-mt-git-20100923-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz

$ file mplayer-mt-git-20100923-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz
mplayer-mt-git-20100923-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz: symbolic link in a loop

And of course the package is nowhere to be found :D
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Friday, 08 October 2010, 13:05 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  git commits c0f58ea9 & 960c2cdc
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 29 September 2010, 12:33 GMT
The package can be found... check the pkg/ directory! That seriously confused me for about half an hour this evening.

Patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-September/011662.html
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 06 October 2010, 13:42 GMT
Fixed in commits:
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=c0f58ea9
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=960c2cdc

@Dan: are these considered for maint? Or should I close this as a 3.5.0 fix?
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 08 October 2010, 12:57 GMT
Are these maint-safe? The canonicalize path one seemed a bit big, but I wasn't sure where you wanted these. I'm fine with cherry-picking them over if you sign off on them going there.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 08 October 2010, 13:04 GMT
Hmm... given this bug is old and only just discovered, and you have concerns about the size of the patch, I think it is fine to wait for 3.5.0.

Loading...