On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:23, Aron Griffis wrote: > Spider wrote: [Wed Nov 19 2003, 11:48:20AM EST] > > Don't emake and econf both fail if they fail, making || die "" > > unnecessary and even impossible? > > It's really poor practice to depend on this. I argued against this > change and was ignored. Here are some reasons: > > - Calling die from econf/emake defeats the function and line number > reporting that are part of die. > > - Developers have to keep track of which ebuild.sh functions call > die and which ones don't. It's really better to leave the error > handling in the ebuild in all cases so that the practice is simply > to call die in all situations where it is appropriate.
I agree. I asked seemant if we could make that official policy: 15:37 <@seemant> g2boojum: I agree 200% with that 15:37 <@seemant> the die *should* be in ebuilds If nobody complains too loudly, can we get this policy into the docs? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
