Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:12:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: imp@village.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make -k oddities Message-ID: <199702261012.KAA08243@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199702260819.AAA04603@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Feb 26, 97 00:19:55 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702261012.KAA08243>