Archives
Archives
| From: | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] eclass error-handling post-EAPI4 | ||
| Date: | Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:09:27 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20121020120534.3883965a@googlemail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] eclass error-handling post-EAPI4 by "Gregory M. Turner" |
||
| 1 | On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:52:49 -0700 |
| 2 | "Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@×××××.us> wrote: |
| 3 | > Took me a while, but I think I see why this is correct, now (mostly |
| 4 | > -- see below). The source of my confusion was a mistaken assumption |
| 5 | > that die() would not respect PORTAGE_NONFATAL. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | The source of your confusion is more the impression that there is such |
| 8 | a thing as PORTAGE_NONFATAL. You should be reading the spec, not code. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | -- |
| 11 | Ciaran McCreesh |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] eclass error-handling post-EAPI4 | "Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@×××××.us> |