From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Feb 26 02:00:49 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA28869
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:00:49 -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 CAA28861
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.4/8.7.3) id KAA08243; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:12:54 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199702261012.KAA08243@veda.is>
Subject: Re: make -k oddities
In-Reply-To: <199702260819.AAA04603@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Feb 26, 97 00:19:55 am"
To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:12:52 +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

> 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.

I agree this is necessary for recursion and subinvocation to work as planned.

> 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).

It is worse than originally stated. If a patchfile does not apply cleanly,
the make -k will continue blindly as it is now. The proposed change will fix
this all round, if there is no serious objection to it.

Adam