| 1 |
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16:11 Wed 26 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o>: |
| 5 |
> > > > Thanks for the tip. I added "failed to install genlop (via dobin)" - |
| 6 |
> > > > not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many |
| 7 |
> > > > ebuilds just do "dobin failed", and some do "failed to install ...". |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > It is mainly to localise which die command caused the halt. So I know |
| 10 |
> > > of no standard. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > if there is just one call to die in a function, then i usually dont |
| 13 |
> > bother ... but if there are multiple ones (possibly nested), then it can |
| 14 |
> > easily save time |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Cardoe was just telling me that die messages are not that useful or |
| 17 |
> time-saving because portage posts the line number of the failure |
| 18 |
> already. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
true, since portage has added this traceback feature (it hasnt always been |
| 21 |
there), the need for the message has decreased ... i want to say however that |
| 22 |
it still isnt 100% correct in some nested situations, but i may be |
| 23 |
remembering things wrong or outdated ... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
also, ebuilds do change over time, so what line # may be correct one day may |
| 26 |
not be relevant the next ... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> That prompts the question, should we get rid of die messages? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
perhaps de-emphasize their general worth, but not get rid of them |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives