| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 16:11 Wed 26 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o>: |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> Thanks for the tip. I added "failed to install genlop (via dobin)" - |
| 11 |
>>>>> not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many |
| 12 |
>>>>> ebuilds just do "dobin failed", and some do "failed to install ...". |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> It is mainly to localise which die command caused the halt. So I know |
| 15 |
>>>> of no standard. |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>> if there is just one call to die in a function, then i usually dont |
| 18 |
>>> bother ... but if there are multiple ones (possibly nested), then it can |
| 19 |
>>> easily save time |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>> Cardoe was just telling me that die messages are not that useful or |
| 22 |
>> time-saving because portage posts the line number of the failure |
| 23 |
>> already. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> true, since portage has added this traceback feature (it hasnt always been |
| 27 |
> there), the need for the message has decreased ... i want to say however that |
| 28 |
> it still isnt 100% correct in some nested situations, but i may be |
| 29 |
> remembering things wrong or outdated ... |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
I thought these issues were worked out already? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> also, ebuilds do change over time, so what line # may be correct one day may |
| 34 |
> not be relevant the next ... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
True. I will concede this point. I could attempt to argue this is why |
| 37 |
it's important to know the version and revision of the package you are |
| 38 |
emerging. But the counter point is evident, times when the ebuild is |
| 39 |
changed without a bump pose a problem. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Which could bring up a point of would it be useful to see if we can |
| 42 |
print out the actual line that caused the die. Now, I don't know if this |
| 43 |
feasible or something the Portage devs want to do. But again, in the |
| 44 |
effort to streamline this might be something to consider. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
>> That prompts the question, should we get rid of die messages? |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> perhaps de-emphasize their general worth, but not get rid of them |
| 51 |
> -mike |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
Which is what I'm after. Let's not force people to put a pointless |
| 54 |
message in there if it's going to be pointless. Essentially, the |
| 55 |
argument here is let's be consistent and put a message always. But a |
| 56 |
better plan of action is let's use common sense and add it as needed. |
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives