Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:51:36 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> Subject: Re: ports/64037 and the alleged && -> ; failure from March 2002 Message-ID: <m3smfmlnbr.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <405322FD.10109@fillmore-labs.com> (Oliver Eikemeier's message of "Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:04:29 %2B0100") References: <20040313002807.GA13745@merlin.emma.line.org> <40525BE9.2050208@fillmore-labs.com> <20040313102423.GA6018@merlin.emma.line.org> <4052E92D.7050000@fillmore-labs.com> <m3y8q5orll.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <405322FD.10109@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> writes: >> Seriously, whether we use gmake or make for ports does not matter, >> neither documents the "make passes -e to /bin/sh" behaviour, hence it >> must not be relied on under any circumstances. > > Use the source, Luke ;) Submit a patch to the manpage. Wrong approach. Why cast make internals in concrete? The point is that I do not condone && being changed back to ; on the assumption that make uses -e, or ";" -> "&&" being rejected. I don't care how somebody else makes a non-robust port. -- Matthias Andree Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3smfmlnbr.fsf>