| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:23:10 -0500 |
| 3 |
Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Spider wrote: [Wed Nov 19 2003, 11:48:20AM EST] |
| 6 |
> > Don't emake and econf both fail if they fail, making || die "" |
| 7 |
> > unnecessary and even impossible? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It's really poor practice to depend on this. I argued against this |
| 10 |
> change and was ignored. Here are some reasons: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - Calling die from econf/emake defeats the function and line |
| 13 |
> number reporting that are part of die. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> - Developers have to keep track of which ebuild.sh functions call |
| 16 |
> die and which ones don't. It's really better to leave the error |
| 17 |
> handling in the ebuild in all cases so that the practice is |
| 18 |
> simply to call die in all situations where it is appropriate. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
<AOL /> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
it only invites confusion. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
//Spider |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
begin .signature |
| 30 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 31 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 32 |
end |
Archives