| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:11:08 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> They can call 'die' in global scope. Perhaps it's not the nicest |
| 8 |
>> thing to do, but it can be done. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Last time I tried it, Portage behaved rather horribly with global scope |
| 11 |
> dies. Is this still the case? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In terms of dependency resolution, the current behavior is to report |
| 14 |
that the package is "masked by corruption". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>> Considering that they can already call 'die' in global scope I don't |
| 17 |
>> see it as being that urgent. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If we're considering global scope die to be a usable solution, we need |
| 20 |
> to start defining its behaviour and providing a way of tracking it in |
| 21 |
> metadata. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sure, we can add some bells and whistles. But like I said before, I |
| 24 |
don't see it as being especially urgent. If an eclass uses 'die' as |
| 25 |
an assertion, it's not something that should be triggered under |
| 26 |
normal circumstances. It serves mostly a feedback mechanism which |
| 27 |
quickly informs the developer when they've made a mistake that needs |
| 28 |
to be corrected immediately. |
| 29 |
- -- |
| 30 |
Thanks, |
| 31 |
Zac |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjpIo0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOtrwCg4Q58XViLtI9/YNMz2hj6VX1k |
| 36 |
y2QAoIHGMLelGKmIyYDYmZNmg61z0LUj |
| 37 |
=iwn8 |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives