On Sunday 07 February 2010 16:10:10 Stelian Ionescu wrote: > Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild environment ? > I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from eutils > which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken > binaries.
this is not the way to approach the problem. 'set -e' has a lot of
implications people don't realize. _any_ command that exits with non-zero
will break things. such as:
matches=`grep foo ./some-file`
no matches of 'foo' will cause the ebuild to exit immediately. it doesnt take
much effort to find plenty of other examples.
it also valid to try and do something like `foo --version >& /dev/null` as a
naive test to see if a program exists and works. messing with the fundamental
'command not found' behavior may unintentionally break this.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=command+not+found
> and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla
many of those would still fail with `set -e` in the ebuild environment because
the missing command is run through a build system like makefiles.
ebuild -> make -> shell -> no command found
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
