catching failures

On Mar 18, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Eric Searcy wrote:
> By the way Jo, you mentioned how you didn't write the Portage code  
> so you needed to push this off to me.  I checked your FreeBSD code,  
> it looks like you're returning 0 to the caller, which means that if  
> pkg_info can't be called, it defaults to `no match' and will try to  
> go ahead and install.  This should probably be switched to -1 like  
> the above code, as you yourself said it should return failure back  
> to the package manager [1].  (Note, its not just FreeBSD code;  
> looking into this most of the others, and even the default case for  
> no package manager in PackageCheck all return 0.  I'll try to write  
> up a patch to address this.)

I know :-(

I wrote the routine in do.c to catch this possibility, but haven't  
gone back and edited any of the package-manager-specific routines to  
return -1 in case of failure.   Sorry, it's been not hellish, but  
very busy here of late and I keep putting off these changes until I  
can commit enough time to be certain I'm not introducing another bug.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness