Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:35:02 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Odd(?) sh/make behaviour. Message-ID: <19980224233502.52745@emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <199802250423.UAA17980@dingo.cdrom.com>; from "Mike Smith" on Tue Feb 24 20:23:26 GMT 1998 References: <199802250423.UAA17980@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Feb 24), Mike Smith said: > > 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...) hmm. I just saw this exact same problem in an Imakefile provided with the "vnc" program ( http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/ ); a PC-Anywhere-type program that lets you control a win95-PC or X-terminal from a win95-PC, X-terminal, or Java-enabled web browser. It's the first free app I've seen that lets you control a PC from X. I ignored the sh problem by just removing the offending "unset MAKEFLAGS MAKELEVEL". xmkmf didn't seem to notice the loss, and Xvnc works beautifully (after some other patches to get xmkmf to produce the right Makefiles). -Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980224233502.52745>