On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 16:11 Wed 26 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > > Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Thanks for the tip. I added "failed to install genlop (via dobin)" - > > > > not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many > > > > ebuilds just do "dobin failed", and some do "failed to install ...". > > > > > > It is mainly to localise which die command caused the halt. So I know > > > of no standard. > > > > if there is just one call to die in a function, then i usually dont > > bother ... but if there are multiple ones (possibly nested), then it can > > easily save time > > Cardoe was just telling me that die messages are not that useful or > time-saving because portage posts the line number of the failure > already.
true, since portage has added this traceback feature (it hasnt always been there), the need for the message has decreased ... i want to say however that it still isnt 100% correct in some nested situations, but i may be remembering things wrong or outdated ... also, ebuilds do change over time, so what line # may be correct one day may not be relevant the next ... > That prompts the question, should we get rid of die messages? perhaps de-emphasize their general worth, but not get rid of them -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
