Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:26:55
Message-Id: 20130615182413.2e1b2f8a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell by Ulrich Mueller
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>