From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 24 20:25:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25648 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:25:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25586 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:24:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17980 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:23:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802250423.UAA17980@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Odd(?) sh/make behaviour. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:23:26 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm looking at a Makefile that does: foo:: (set -e; cd foo; unset BAR BAZ; ./something; make stuff) Now, if I walk up to sh and say 'set -e; unset FOO' where foo doesn't exist, sh immediately exit. At this point, make throws in the towel. But GNU make doesn't, and for that matter, sh doesn't exit under GNU make either, despite the 'set -e'. So who's right? Is it correct behaviour for 'unset' to return nonzero if the requested variables weren't set in the first place? It doesn't seem to be intended that this command should fail (the entire item fails to build if that's the case...) -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message