| 1 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:42:08 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On 16:11 Wed 26 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o>: |
| 8 |
> >>>> Thanks for the tip. I added "failed to install genlop (via dobin)" - |
| 9 |
> >>>> not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many |
| 10 |
> >>>> ebuilds just do "dobin failed", and some do "failed to install ...". |
| 11 |
> >>> It is mainly to localise which die command caused the halt. So I |
| 12 |
> know |
| 13 |
> >>> of no standard. |
| 14 |
> >> if there is just one call to die in a function, then i usually dont |
| 15 |
> bother ... |
| 16 |
> >> but if there are multiple ones (possibly nested), then it can |
| 17 |
> easily save |
| 18 |
> >> time |
| 19 |
> > Cardoe was just telling me that die messages are not that useful or |
| 20 |
> > time-saving because portage posts the line number of the failure |
| 21 |
> > already. That prompts the question, should we get rid of die messages? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > Thanks, |
| 24 |
> > Donnie |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> No. They might contain useful information. Just the line |
| 27 |
> number of the failure is just frustrating: You don't really |
| 28 |
> necessarily know what went wrong, and you have to go read the ebuild to |
| 29 |
> find out. Users might not appreciate that. |
| 30 |
> > -- |
| 31 |
> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Regards, |
| 34 |
die "dobin failed" or something equally vague and pointless is no less |
| 35 |
or more frustrating or informative then a line number. And arguably if |
| 36 |
there's multiple statements that contain die "dobin failed" in an ebuild |
| 37 |
it can set you on the wrong path and is equally and if not more frustrating. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives