From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Feb 26 00:21:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA25177
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA25172
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id CAA27372; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:20:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from wck-ca5-07.ix.netcom.com(199.35.213.167) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma027365; Wed Feb 26 02:19:59 1997
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.9) id AAA04603; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702260819.AAA04603@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: adam@veda.is
CC: imp@village.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199702260818.IAA08085@veda.is> (message from Adam David on Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:18:18 +0000 (GMT))
Subject: Re: make -k oddities
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * 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.

I don't think so.  It will bitch and whine and say "<target> was not
remade because of errors."

 * 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.

If that matters, you shouldn't be using "make -k". :)

Actually I think your second suggestion is better, to have "make -k"
return 1 for any error.  I said "ok, build a and b and c, but if one
of them didn't build, don't stop and do your best with the rest."
make will say "ok" and return 0 only if all of them built
successfully.

Note that even with "-k", make will check the dependency and sequence
of commands to ensure not to continue execution on a broken path.  If
"-k" is passed to sub-makes in ${.MAKEFLAGS}, it will try to continue
(and this is the problem that brought up the current discussion).

 * Would you also let -command pass an error when make exits? (why, why not?)

That is different.  "-" is an explicit "I don't care what this command
returns" in the *Makefile*.  make has no business messing with their
return status.

Satoshi