1 |
On Sunday 07 February 2010 16:10:10 Stelian Ionescu wrote: |
2 |
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild environment ? |
3 |
> I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from eutils |
4 |
> which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken |
5 |
> binaries. |
6 |
|
7 |
this is not the way to approach the problem. 'set -e' has a lot of |
8 |
implications people don't realize. _any_ command that exits with non-zero |
9 |
will break things. such as: |
10 |
matches=`grep foo ./some-file` |
11 |
no matches of 'foo' will cause the ebuild to exit immediately. it doesnt take |
12 |
much effort to find plenty of other examples. |
13 |
|
14 |
it also valid to try and do something like `foo --version >& /dev/null` as a |
15 |
naive test to see if a program exists and works. messing with the fundamental |
16 |
'command not found' behavior may unintentionally break this. |
17 |
|
18 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=command+not+found |
19 |
> and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla |
20 |
|
21 |
many of those would still fail with `set -e` in the ebuild environment because |
22 |
the missing command is run through a build system like makefiles. |
23 |
ebuild -> make -> shell -> no command found |
24 |
-mike |