[PATCH 2/7] ldb:ldbdel tool - use LDB result constants for consistency

[simo]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 08:54 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> Simo,
> 
> can you live with my decision?

Why -1, and not simply LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR ?

Simo.

> Cheers,
> Matthias
> 
> Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> > Okay Simo,
> >
> > I've updated the patchset in my private repo (branch ldb_tools):
> > - I'm now returning "-1" on generic errors - where a LDB error does 
> > not really fit. As an exception I've left the "ldbedit" tool since the 
> > conversion to LDB errors there is very complicated
> > - Otherwise the LDB error code is returned
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matthias
> >
> > simo wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 17:37 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> >>> Yeah simo,
> >>>
> >>> I agree. But which method do you prefer? "-1" or LDB errors?
> >>>
> >>> Then, after this has been cleared I'm willing to rework my patches to
> >>> comply with the decision.
> >> Given it has been inconsistent for more than a year now, I have no
> >> preference, unless someone is depending on the return value in some
> >> scripts, like automatic testing.
> >>
> >> If nobody is depending on it then I would be ok with returning LDB error
> >> codes
> >>
> >> Simo.
> >>
> >
> >


-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>