On 2016-10-28 13:21, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>> On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +0000, Ali H. Fardan wrote:
>> >> actually, imo, I think
>> >> usage() should return success.
>> > Surely not.
>> > The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to
>> > the tool, you wouldn't return “no error” code when there actually
>> > has been an error.
>>
>> How could a script test if 'foo' is compiled correctly and runs
>> without any missing shared libraries? if such a thing existed it will
>> return 1> else, 0 is returned, the program still works fine, you just
>> didn't give it the right arguments.
> You're clearly on the wrong path for what you want to test here.
>
> A script wouldn't test on runtime if there has been some compile-time
> errors.
>
> That's not for the tool to tell you if it has been correctly built or
> not, its behaviour is expected to be built correctly.
> If not, that's your fault (or the packager you trust do to it for you,
> actually again your responsability).
Blaming someone else won't solve the issue.
---
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Received on Fri Oct 28 2016 - 15:36:59 CEST