Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> (2016-05-15): > On Sunday, 15 May 2016 2:03:28 PM AEST Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Failing to return success or failure properly really is Bad Programming > > 101. This means your uers have no programmatic way of knowing whether > > what they called worked, and how to behave accordingly. > > I know, I know. :) I agree. However here safety concerns are more > important: we can afford to fail to build a package but not to > compromise package management by propagating errors where they > naturally do not occur. > > I hope it make sense.
It doesn't, but it seems time is going to be better spent checking the actual side-effects of installing libdvd-css or calling that script directly, instead of being told again and again how much of a snow flake your package is, and how OK it is for it to behave like it currently does. […] > > I didn't realize it got hooked up into apt (the build script is called > > directly in Tails). Actually, this makes this issue looks even worth > > than I thought… > > "Even worse" maybe? I'm not sure I understand your concerns... Yes. English isn't my monther tongue, and failing at quasi-homophones can happen to me. KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
