Re: [PATCH] bitbake: Correct broken symlink behaviour

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

Hi,

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 19:23 +0300, Roman Savchenko wrote:
> From: Roman Savchenko <roman.savchenko@attocapital.com>
> 
> Unlink broken symlink.

This really needs a few more details about the problem and how an issue
occurs. I can understand from reading the patch but not from the commit
message.


> Signed-off-by: Roman Savchenko <gmstima@gmail.com>
> ---
>  bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/__init__.py | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/__init__.py
> b/bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/__init__.py
> index 6ef0c6f..a752c6c 100644
> --- a/bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/__init__.py
> +++ b/bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/__init__.py
> @@ -925,6 +925,17 @@ def rename_bad_checksum(ud, suffix):
>      bb.utils.movefile(ud.localpath, new_localpath)
>  
>  
> +def try_symlink(source, link_name):
> +    """
> +    Tries to make link to passed source if link name does not
> +    exist.
> +    """
> +    if not os.path.exists(link_name):
> +        if os.path.islink(link_name):
> +            os.unlink(link_name)
> +
> +        os.symlink(source, link_name)
> +

I don't think the function name is right. "try" implies its fine if it
doesn't work out. In reality its more like "symlink if its invalid".
"create_valid_symlink" whilst long is probably more reflective of what
it does but I'm sure we could still do better :/. 

You could add "or the symlink is invalid" to the function description
too.

Cheers,

Richard