Ferris McCormick wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:42:08 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 16:11 Wed 26 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > >>> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> Thanks for the tip. I added "failed to install genlop (via dobin)" - > >>>> not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many > >>>> ebuilds just do "dobin failed", and some do "failed to install ...". > >>> It is mainly to localise which die command caused the halt. So I > know > >>> of no standard. > >> if there is just one call to die in a function, then i usually dont > bother ... > >> but if there are multiple ones (possibly nested), then it can > easily save > >> time > > Cardoe was just telling me that die messages are not that useful or > > time-saving because portage posts the line number of the failure > > already. That prompts the question, should we get rid of die messages? > > > Thanks, > > Donnie > > No. They might contain useful information. Just the line > number of the failure is just frustrating: You don't really > necessarily know what went wrong, and you have to go read the ebuild to > find out. Users might not appreciate that. > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > Regards, die "dobin failed" or something equally vague and pointless is no less or more frustrating or informative then a line number. And arguably if there's multiple statements that contain die "dobin failed" in an ebuild it can set you on the wrong path and is equally and if not more frustrating.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
