-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:11:08 -0700 > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> They can call 'die' in global scope. Perhaps it's not the nicest >> thing to do, but it can be done. > > Last time I tried it, Portage behaved rather horribly with global scope > dies. Is this still the case?
In terms of dependency resolution, the current behavior is to report that the package is "masked by corruption". >> Considering that they can already call 'die' in global scope I don't >> see it as being that urgent. > > If we're considering global scope die to be a usable solution, we need > to start defining its behaviour and providing a way of tracking it in > metadata. Sure, we can add some bells and whistles. But like I said before, I don't see it as being especially urgent. If an eclass uses 'die' as an assertion, it's not something that should be triggered under normal circumstances. It serves mostly a feedback mechanism which quickly informs the developer when they've made a mistake that needs to be corrected immediately. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjpIo0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOtrwCg4Q58XViLtI9/YNMz2hj6VX1k y2QAoIHGMLelGKmIyYDYmZNmg61z0LUj =iwn8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
