X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:55 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Side-by-side configuration is incorrect reported as permission denied
Message-ID: <20120813084755.GA24539@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <k045k2$gvk$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <5025C431 DOT 7050201 AT cygwin DOT com> <CA+7connXxSSkw-fhHvqbVanEvX7YHOVVdLndmqmd07xRvFT49Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120812170641 DOT GC32748 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <CA+7conm=AXUX9Xfj67tGRgMbrgC47W9QHuQ2L3V2p_=7Cf81GQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CA+sc5m=myjskB4zG0HARWHvZMQGz-k=j7jT=q1Gny4XpNgMfCg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120812205407 DOT GA7337 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <CA+7conmB1mt25F+d1-TsseeK=eXRRD5JrGW42u=Mka8061A7Zg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5028B9D5 DOT 6050007 AT gmx DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5028B9D5.6050007@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Aug 13 10:24, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> There is no need for the 'no', i'd suggest ELIBBAD.

Not bad, either.  So we have ELIBACC, ELIBBADD, and ENOPKG as 
suggestions.

> (And to bring back to memory, i'd also suggest to add EFAIL be added)

Here's a clear "no".  EFAIL is not a useful error message.  It's not
even slightly wrong, like EACCES in this case might be, it's entirely
lacking information.  What's the accompanying error message?  "Something
failed"?  "An error occured, but I have no idea what"?

This reminds me of the old awk, which apparently only knew two error
messages:

  awk: syntax error near line x
  awk: bailing out near line x

In which scenario would such an EFAIL be really useful, which wouldn't
be better covered by an error code which contains at least *some*
information about the cause?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple