From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Feb 26 00:06:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA24786
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA24781
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.4/8.7.3) id IAA08085; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:18:20 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199702260818.IAA08085@veda.is>
Subject: Re: make -k oddities
In-Reply-To: <199702260707.XAA03996@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Feb 25, 97 11:07:42 pm"
To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:18:18 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: imp@village.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  * 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