| 1 |
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:23, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Spider wrote: [Wed Nov 19 2003, 11:48:20AM EST] |
| 3 |
> > Don't emake and econf both fail if they fail, making || die "" |
| 4 |
> > unnecessary and even impossible? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It's really poor practice to depend on this. I argued against this |
| 7 |
> change and was ignored. Here are some reasons: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> - Calling die from econf/emake defeats the function and line number |
| 10 |
> reporting that are part of die. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - Developers have to keep track of which ebuild.sh functions call |
| 13 |
> die and which ones don't. It's really better to leave the error |
| 14 |
> handling in the ebuild in all cases so that the practice is simply |
| 15 |
> to call die in all situations where it is appropriate. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I agree. I asked seemant if we could make that official policy: |
| 18 |
15:37 <@seemant> g2boojum: I agree 200% with that |
| 19 |
15:37 <@seemant> the die *should* be in ebuilds |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If nobody complains too loudly, can we get this policy into the docs? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-g2boojum- |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
Archives