| 1 |
On Saturday 13 November 2004 15:43, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 2 |
> maillog: 13/11/2004-05:44:49(-0600): Matthew Kenendy types |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Perhaps doins should take a --strict argument, whose absence will be |
| 5 |
> > compatible with what I do now and whose presence will be appreciated |
| 6 |
> > by those developers forgetting to install init.d run scripts etc. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "--strict" v.s. "|| die" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If this is the case, I'd say "|| die" is the more intuitive. Devs who |
| 11 |
> forget will not appreciate --strict, because it doesn't make much of a |
| 12 |
> difference if they had to add --strict or append "|| die". |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> do* et al, should either always die, or be left as they are. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In fact, a "--relaxed" option to those functions makes more sense. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I agree, even when files might be missing I surely want the packagers to |
| 19 |
know that. I've had some times when a new upstream tarbal did not contain |
| 20 |
a file anymore, while I was still installing it. If the do* functions had |
| 21 |
just died as to be expected, I would have caught the bug. Relying on |
| 22 |
developers never forgetting ||die is not a smart way to handle it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paul |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 30 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives