On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:44:28AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > Many style bugs are visible in this patch: [...] > - sysexits.h is used [...]
Bruce, until sysexits(3) doesn't explicitly say it shouldn't be used,
please stop calling this a bug, because you are just confusing people.
At this point sysexits(3) actually even suggests it is blessed by
style(9). This is how it starts:
According to style(9), it is not a good practice to call exit(3) with
arbitrary values to indicate a failure condition when ending a program.
Instead, the pre-defined exit codes from sysexits should be used, so the
caller of the process can get a rough estimation about the failure class
without looking up the source code.
In my personal opinion it doesn't hurt to use sysexits(3) - if you don't
want to interpret exit status then treat every value != 0 as an error.
In HAST (IIRC) I do interpret exit status - if I get EX_TEMPFAIL, I know
I can try to restart the process, if I get something else I don't
restart it, as I risk an infinite loop.
Apart from my personal opinion, if you want to call it a bug and not
confuse people, then start discussion and change the manual page to
recommend avoiding sysexits(3). As of now we are just sending mixed
signals and create confusion.
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com
FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://mobter.com
pgpPC8ND0_eSl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
