On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:39:41 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > There was a change regardless of what you think. > > > > No, you were misreading the original wording > > The original wording didn't disallow affecting die(). Not disallowed > things are always allowed.
Er, no. The wording describes the extent of what die and nonfatal do.
There's nothing in the die description about it being affected by
nonfatal, and nothing in the nonfatal description about affecting die,
so neither affect each other.
PMS doesn't say "nonfatal must not chmod +s ${D}/bin/sh", so do you
believe that nonfatal would be allowed to do that too?
> > > > There was a clarification of the wording after it became clear
> > > > that there was room to misinterpret the intent of the original
> > > > wording, and it went through the usual Council-mandated process
> > > > for such a change.
> > >
> > > This sentence contradicts your first sentence.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> "it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a
> change" clearly contradicts "There was no change".
There was a change in wording to better convey the original intent.
There was no change in behaviour.
> > The original wording used the phrase "abort the build process due
> > to a failure". The intent was that this would cover commands that
> > had language like "Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per
> > section~\ref{sec:failure-behaviour}.".
> >
> > The language for 'die' does not say "due to a failure", and so was
> > not supposed to be affected by 'nonfatal'.
> >
> > However, that wasn't explicit, so your misreading of the intent of
> > the document is entirely understandable. That is why we fixed it.
>
> You broke it.
I made the wording more clearly present the original intent. That is
all.
> > > Additionally you had deceived Christian Faulhammer by not
> > > presenting negative consequences of your patch and your
> > > interpretation of original wording of definition of nonfatal().
> >
> > The only consequence of the patch was to clarify what was already
> > stated.
>
> It wasn't stated as I said above in my 2 first sentences in this
> e-mail.
It was. The extent of the behaviour of nonfatal is described in PMS.
You can't go around inventing magic new behaviour for it that isn't
specified.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
