Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> writes:
> Le 04/05/2011 14:06, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>> a nice behaviour, it would be way better to print
>> a warning and fallback to a correct behaviour. Users can then report the
>> problems without experiencing a non working-application.
>
> Printing a warning on a thing that is potentially used everywhere,
> especially in scripts is not a good idea. It will simply corrupt the
> data that the othe part of the script is waiting for, and that even on
> stderr, a lot of scripts are not (correctly?) designed for that.
I don't see how this is different from the error reporting on duplicate
free or memory list corruptions. So printing a warning does break a few
bad scripts. Aborting will also break them, but it will break all the
clean scripts and normal use cases too.
While not ideal I think I would prefer a error over aborting at least
for the time being.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87oc3ia7ja.fsf@frosties.localnet
