Aaron Walker wrote:	[Fri Nov 12 2004, 06:42:06AM EST]
> Firstly, new* shouldn't need to die since they just cp and call their do*
> counterpart, iirc.

except that we'd want to see the correct die message.

> Yes, I agree that things should install something or die, not ignore it.
> However, IMO, it is considered better style to keep all that kind of
> stuff in one place (the ebuild), just like it's usually considered
> better to handle all signals and exit code in main() of a C/C++ app.

I've made the same statement in the past.  You might reconsider that
position in the context of ebuilds.  There is quite a difference:

- In C/C++ it can be expensive to do up-front checking prior to
  calling into an API.  Additionally the exception model of C++ makes
  it natural to do error handling in the caller rather than the
  callee.  After all, how should the callee know what you want to do
  with errors?

- When calling the aforementioned commands in ebuilds, there is never
  a situation when a failure is expected.  If ever a command fails,
  the correct action is to die.  Since that is the case, there is no
  reason to put all the error-handling code in the ebuilds themselves.
  It's just a burden on ebuild writers, and instead the errors often
  get ignored.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer