| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
>> I didn't understand you. Even if the external binary can't call die, |
| 5 |
>> what's to prevent the caller from dying based on the return value of |
| 6 |
>> the called binary? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Then we're back to having people do dobin || die, which is precisely |
| 9 |
> what we're trying to solve. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not really. Can't dobin be like so: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
fail() { |
| 14 |
if hasq strict FEATURES; then |
| 15 |
die "$@" |
| 16 |
else |
| 17 |
ewarn "QA Notice: ${@}. blah foo" |
| 18 |
} |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
dobin() { |
| 21 |
dobin.sh "${@}" || fail "dobin failed" |
| 22 |
} |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> It should not be necessary to define a new EAPI to make sure packages |
| 25 |
>> are not broken. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Yes it should. It's a change in behaviour in functionality upon which |
| 28 |
> quite a lot of things depend. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
This is not functionality. It is the lack thereof. Making this part of |
| 31 |
an EAPI makes it opt-in, which it shouldn't be. It is important for QA |
| 32 |
and should be mandatory for all ebuilds. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Regards, |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Arun Raghavan |
| 37 |
(http://nemesis.accosted.net) |
| 38 |
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056 |
| 39 |
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives