Isn't this a feature request for versionpkg?

I think -c switch should work if build fails (if it does not work - then it should :-P but I guess this will be solved in 3.1 do_cleanup() anyway)

"makepkg should check if the package is git or svn or any of the other supported rcs systems..."

Guess what? makepkg supports ZERO of these. Why? KISS. Sure, you can write a PKGBUILD to use them, but that isn't our issue. This sounds like a versionpkg deal or something else, but not ours. Removing the src/ directory all the time is also a bad idea, as recompiling after changing one configure flag would require you to rebuild a whole project, even if some cached files could still be used, etc.

Oops, meant this as a feature request, and no, not for versionpkg. I was asking more for the removal of the src dir. But figured if you're going to do that, add a conditional to see if it's an rcs setup, so that the user doesn't have to recheckout through the rcs system.

And removing src directory is usually a good idea. It always provides a clean build environment, and if people DON'T want to remove it, that's why there is the -e --noextract option anyways. Quite useless IMO if nothing removes the directory.

And there are a lot of pkgbuilds which patch a directory, thus it should remove the directory. Look at any of the kernels for example. They'll fail when you go to rebuild them if you stop a compile, or if it fails. At least they have for me the 5 or 6 times I've build them.

The patch program has an -N option which should probably be used in most PKGBUILDs. If I want to rebuild a kernel with one new patch, should I really have to throw away the thousands of other object files that didn't change?

I might be playing devil's advocate a bit here, but I also don't see 'rm -rf src/' as being all that worthy of being added to makepkg.

It is added to the kernels, yet I still have issues if I don't remove the src dir.

At least if you won't make it by default, how about an option to remove it. Can't hurt, would solve the feature request. If you're set against it though, close the bug, no reason for further discussion. I can only request, it's up to you to grant it or not.

Is there anyway you can provide a proposed patch for this fix? I guess my biggest issue here is twofold:
1. I'm not sure adding it will please everyone- I think there are a lot of people that like that src/ dir sticking around at times.
2. Doing this probably isn't a simple one line addition to makepkg, and I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are looking for here.

Once again- it isn't that I am completely against this feature, but I'm not sure why the -c flag, as Roman mentioned, doesn't do what you want. Take a look at the makepkg in GIT which calls do_cleanup() on every failure, and should take into account the use of this flag whether cleaning up in the end or after a failure.

http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=blob;f=scripts/makepkg.in;h=001179d08abf7302032be0f99271990e61628f95;hb=HEAD

I guess there's no true purpose in the end.

-c works if you're not expecting and bugs in the build, but if you do, you can't look at the source, until you start and build it again without it.
On the other hand, you wouldn't use -c unless you knew it was going to build properly.

Are you proposing this can be closed then?

Yes