On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 08:42:49PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:44:28AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: >>> >>>> Many style bugs are visible in this patch: >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> - sysexits.h is used >>>> >>> [...] >>> >> >> Bruce, until sysexits(3) doesn't explicitly say it shouldn't be used, >>> please stop calling this a bug, because you are just confusing people. >>> At this point sysexits(3) actually even suggests it is blessed by >>> style(9). This is how it starts: >>> >> >> According to style(9), it is not a good practice to call exit(3) >>> with arbitrary values to indicate a failure condition when >>> ending a program. Instead, the pre-defined exit codes from >>> sysexits should be used, so the caller of the process can get a >>> rough estimation about the failure class without looking up the >>> source code. >>> >> > This is just another bug in sysexits(3). This is not according to > style(9), since style(9) was fixed to not say that after I complained > previously :-). It has never been normal practice to use sysexits(3), > but someone who likes it added recommendations to use it to style(9) when > they added the man pages for sysexits(3). Before that, it was > so rarely used that it had no man page. > To add to the areas of confusion already stated in this thread, err(3) explicitly recommends using sysexits(3) and uses it in all of the examples. I decided to use 0/1 instead of sysexits since it seems most appropriate based on the discussion here and other examples in sbin. I incorporated these changes as well as addressing some of Bruce's other feedback in r253109. Thanks, -Jim _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
