Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:45:35 +0000 From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> To: Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: alpha tinderbox failure Message-ID: <E18VaNb-0002Vc-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030105163435.V4807@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> References: <2994.1041712055@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030105175202.N14167-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20030105175202.N14167-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> wrote: > >Although the above case is special from what I learnt in another >message in this thread (I managed to delete it after seeing it so >I cannot quote it here). ISTR that the non zero exit status comes >from a tool with the following convention: 0 is "absolutely OK", >1 is "not perfect but still plausible enough to get accepted most >of the time", and 2 is "a real error, never OK". I believe that unifdef got its exit status values from diff. (The use of the word "trouble" in the DIAGNOSTICS section is indicative.) Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ CAPE WRATH TO RATTRAY HEAD INCLUDING ORKNEY: VARIABLE 1 OR 2 LOCALLY 3 OR 4. ISOLATED WINTRY SHOWERS. MAINLY GOOD. MODERATE DECAYING SLIGHT. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E18VaNb-0002Vc-00>