Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:18:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: imp@village.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make -k oddities Message-ID: <199702260818.IAA08085@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199702260707.XAA03996@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Feb 25, 97 11:07:42 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * make -k means "ignore error return from command" but bsd.port.mk uses the > * error return to bail out at that point. > > That's not the problem. The real problem is that "make -k" always > returns 0. By changing the way chaining is done (see attached patch) > some cases can be caught (like fetch) but not all because bsd.port.mk > often calles sub-makes as a shell command to do certain things (try to > read _PORT_USE if you have a strong stomach). > > Do people think "make -k" always returning 0 is correct? I tend to > think it's a bug, and it should return the status of the last command > executed. Otherwise it is useless for chaining calls of make. > > Satoshi Fundamental command paradigm user: do this unix: (ok) :) silence is golden :) Successfully completing the command hardly counts as an error. This is similar to rm -f. If make -k returns the command status of the most recent command, there is no guarantee that it will have been the failed command. If you would let make -k return 1 to signify any failed command or 2 for abnormal condition, there is no indication of which command(s) failed, if that matters. Would you also let -command pass an error when make exits? (why, why not?) Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702260818.IAA08085>