>-----Original Message----- >From: Igor Pechtchanski >Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:17 PM >To: cygwin-apps<at>cygwin.com >Subject: RE: Pending patches for generic build script > >Rafael, > >Please try to set up your mailer to not quote raw e-mail addresses in your >replies. Thanks. More below.
Oops, will pay attention next time, sorry. > >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rafael Kitover wrote: > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Igor Pechtchanski >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:07 AM >> >To: Yaakov Selkowitz >> >Cc: cygwin-apps<at>cygwin<dot>com >> >Subject: Re: Pending patches for generic build script >> > >> >locally, mostly to eliminate things that I'm already in the process of >> >applying, such as the '; \' -> '&& \' transformation, and I'd rather not >> >go through that again unless I have to. If the patch is the same, just >> >send a ChangeLog, please (more comments below). >> >> About the whole ;\ and &&\ ugliness, can we just have a "set +e" at the >> top of the script, use sane single-command-per-line syntax and be done >> with it? Will someone please think of the children? > >No. This is for the same reason I'm not going to check in some of >Yaakov's changes that replace the "find...; true" construct with just >"find...". Some commands (including find) return bogus values sometimes, >and we don't want the script to stop for no reason. I suspect that having >"set +e; find...; set -e" will be even uglier than the current && syntax. >At least the way it is now, you can see that the commands obviously depend >on the others' results. Well, the idea came to me from debian system scripts, which for the most part are written with set +e at the top, including init scripts, postinstall scripts, etc.. For commands that can return false but are not a fatal error, this construct works: false || true As a bonus, this construct documents that this particular line can return a false value. -- Rafael