From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Feb 26 12:02:55 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA29528
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:02:55 -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 MAA29521
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.4/8.7.3) id UAA00730; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:14:19 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199702262014.UAA00730@veda.is>
Subject: Re: make -k oddities
In-Reply-To: <E0vzoKJ-0000h5-00@rover.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Feb 26, 97 11:43:39 am"
To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:14:18 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu, 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

>      -k      Continue processing after errors are encountered, but only on
>              those targets that do not depend on the target whose creation
>              caused the error.
> which implies that if you do a make -k as a submake, it should return
> an error if anything it ran caused an error (excluding those things
> explicitly ignored).
> 
> Warner
> 

Put this way, seems irrefutable.
Go for it.

Adam