1 |
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:16:32 +0200 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > This warning has been obsolete for some time; modern versions of |
11 |
> > Portage handle die in a subshell just fine. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > In fact, at least a couple of eclasses rely on this behavior. For |
14 |
> > example, python-r1 uses subshells created by multiprocessing.eclass |
15 |
> > to implement parallel "sub-phase" functions, any of which may call |
16 |
> > die on failure. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> > Are there any objections to removing this warning from the |
19 |
> > devmanual? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell: |
22 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3 |
23 |
> |
24 |
> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be |
25 |
> fixed. |
26 |
|
27 |
What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this? |
28 |
What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the specs? |
29 |
|
30 |
When we're considering changing this, just a reference isn't enough; |
31 |
please state why it is "_not_ guaranteed". What is the reasoning? |
32 |
|
33 |
Thank you in advance. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
With kind regards, |
37 |
|
38 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
39 |
Gentoo Developer |
40 |
|
41 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
42 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
43 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |