| 1 |
Spider wrote: [Wed Nov 19 2003, 11:48:20AM EST] |
| 2 |
> Don't emake and econf both fail if they fail, making || die "" |
| 3 |
> unnecessary and even impossible? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It's really poor practice to depend on this. I argued against this |
| 6 |
change and was ignored. Here are some reasons: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
- Calling die from econf/emake defeats the function and line number |
| 9 |
reporting that are part of die. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- Developers have to keep track of which ebuild.sh functions call |
| 12 |
die and which ones don't. It's really better to leave the error |
| 13 |
handling in the ebuild in all cases so that the practice is simply |
| 14 |
to call die in all situations where it is appropriate. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Aron |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Aron Griffis |
| 20 |
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) |
| 21 |
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0 |
Archives