On Saturday 18 August 2012 03:21:20 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:25:10 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 16 August 2012 16:19:44 Michał Górny wrote: > > > --- a/eutils.eclass > > > +++ b/eutils.eclass > > > > > > +# Install all specified <file>s into <directory>. This doesn't > > > modify global +# 'insinto' path. Alike doins, calls 'die' on > > > failure in EAPI 4+; in earlier +# EAPIs, returns false in that case. > > > > i don't really see the point in differentiating here. we have plenty > > of helpers that have always implicitly called die regardless of the > > EAPI level, and it's not like you'd be breaking any existing behavior > > since no one is using this already. and even then, you'd be > > "breaking" builds that were already broken. > > Maybe. Alternatively, I could end up doing doins || die || die. It will > work but what's the point?
the double die only kicks in with EAPI=4+, and even then is hidden to most
people at the code level. it also looks a lot better than:
(
insinto ... && doins ...
)
case ${EAPI:-0} in 0|1|2|3) [[ $? -ne 0 ]] && die ;; esac
vs
(insinto ... && doins ...) || die
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
