On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:24:29 -0700 "Gregory M. Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/20/2012 4:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:52:49 -0700 > > "Gregory M. Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Took me a while, but I think I see why this is correct, now (mostly > >> -- see below). The source of my confusion was a mistaken > >> assumption that die() would not respect PORTAGE_NONFATAL. > > > > The source of your confusion is more the impression that there is > > such a thing as PORTAGE_NONFATAL. You should be reading the spec, > > not code. > > Seriously? OK, let's try: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/4/pms.html#x1-13000012.3.3.1 > > and > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/4/pms.html#x1-13500012.3.3.6 > > do not comport with the actual behavior of portage. > > Specifically, they very strongly suggest that nonfatal does not > influence the behavior of die(). So depending on one's reading of > the situation, either the PMS is misspecified or portage is broken.
They don't just suggest it. It's stated outright in the description of
nonfatal:
Executes the remainder of its arguments as a command,
preserving the exit status. If this results in a command being
called that would normally abort the build process due to a failure
(but not due to an explicit die or assert call), instead a non-zero
exit status shall be returned. Only in EAPIs listed in table 12.5
as supporting nonfatal.
So if 'nonfatal die' doesn't die with Portage, you've found a bug.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
