portsnap

[jb]

RW <rwmaillists <at> googlemail.com> writes:

> 
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
> jb wrote:
> 
> > > You gave portsnap two commands - one succeeded and the other failed.

Nope. I gave ONE command: 'portsnap fetch update'. 

> > But this looks like a flaky entry validation - it should be rejected
> > up front as invalid entry, even if it applied to the second part -
> > "update". Because the effect of processing the entire entry "fetch"
> > plus "update" is lost anyway.
> 
> Not isn't, you've brought the snapshot up to date.

Well, yes. But as I already explained, there was ONE command.

If I wanted to be satisfied with two command outcomes, even if logically
linked by sequential execution, then I would do:
# portsnap fetch; portsnap update

There is a subtle, but important difference.

In general, if I wanted to check for command completion code, which is quite
common in UNIX CLI or scripting env, it would make a lot of difference if
a command failed half way in both cases:
'portsnap fetch update; check-completion-code'
and
'portsnap fetch; check-completion-code; portsnap update; check-completion-code'

jb