On 02/09/07, James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote: > > > > > > > One thing though, I think it would be really good if at least the > > exit code of > > the script would be something different from 0 when any of the > > steps failed. > > > > That will be very important when we try to integrate with the PG > > Build Farm > > or any other fully automated smoke test suite to make sure we won't > > go on > > when the configuration step fails. > > > > While I personally have no big problem with the current setup, Gabor > raises an interesting point. > > Could we get some discussion of the pros and cons of different > alternatives? > > -- Should Configure.pl die when one of its steps fail? > -- Should it not die, but exit with a nonzero exit code? > -- Should it not die, but trigger a different message on STDOUT? > -- Or is the current setup, on balance, best suited for our needs?
There are definitely cases in which we should barf, although I'm not sure if we should *always* barf. For instance, if Configure.pl can't find a C-compiler there isn't much use in continuing, however, to continue is the current behaviour. I have the vague feeling that this question has been raised before, but no firm answer has arisen... Just my 0.02 Euro. Paul
