From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62441381F3 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95735E0996; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F1A9E096C for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r5FGPFVL013340 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:25:15 +0200 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.6/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r5FGPFmD002347; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:25:15 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r5FGPFfI002344; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:25:15 +0200 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20924.38251.723173.470046@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:25:15 +0200 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell In-Reply-To: <51BC941B.8090602@gentoo.org> References: <51BC9105.5070604@gentoo.org> <20924.37728.751450.362549@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <51BC941B.8090602@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller X-Archives-Salt: 8319006e-a33f-4cdf-8fda-352292fd1307 X-Archives-Hash: 454ba2a60c2a2e6b4c426fc0a9d3416e >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, hasufell wrote: >> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell: >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3 >> >> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be >> fixed. > How does that make any sense? It makes perfect sense. The specification doesn't require that the package manager's die function works in a subshell, so ebuilds and eclasses cannot rely on such behaviour. If you want a different behaviour for future EAPIs, then PMS needs to be changed. Ulrich