Le 04/05/2011 16:02, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> writes: > >> Le 04/05/2011 14:06, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : >>> a nice behaviour, it would be way better to print >>> a warning and fallback to a correct behaviour. Users can then report the >>> problems without experiencing a non working-application. >> >> Printing a warning on a thing that is potentially used everywhere, >> especially in scripts is not a good idea. It will simply corrupt the >> data that the othe part of the script is waiting for, and that even on >> stderr, a lot of scripts are not (correctly?) designed for that. > > I don't see how this is different from the error reporting on duplicate > free or memory list corruptions. So printing a warning does break a few
Duplicate free or memory prints an error and *aborts*, so the data it's not propagated further. Printing a warning and continuing, means the data is propagated further. > bad scripts. Aborting will also break them, but it will break all the > clean scripts and normal use cases too. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc15e52.1070...@aurel32.net