Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sep 23, 2003, at 4:02 PM, Todd Sabin wrote: > >> Maybe I've misunderstood you, but you may want to recheck the -k >> documentation and/or play with it some. Your description above is >> exactly what make -k avoids. For example, in the "make ethereal" >> scenario we're talking about, make -k notices that packet-x11.o failed >> to build, but it keeps going trying to build the other components of >> ethereal that don't depend on that. > > That was precisely what I did *NOT* want to have happen. I wanted to > see the output of the very first command that failed, without *any* > other output after it, even output reporting that other stuff not > depending on the output of the failed build was built. I did *NOT* > want make to go on trying to do *anything* after something failed, so > I did *not* want it run with the "-k" option - i.e., "-k" avoids what > I *did* want.
I realize you may not want to use the -k option. I was merely trying to point out that one of the things you apparently think or thought it does is actually something it very carefully avoids doing. >>> Fixing this would probably require some time spent reading the >>> Automake documentation to see if there's a "right" way to handle this >>> or if we just have to add dependency rules. >> >> I try to maintain a healthy distance from automake/autoconf, so I have >> no idea how they're supposed to interact with dependencies, but this >> "feels" like it's "just" a matter of listing dependencies right in >> whatever input ultimately results in Makefile, for what that's worth. > > That's probably the case, but there might be a way to have automake do > a lot of that work for you, for example. (I.e., do you just put > explicit dependencies in, or do you set some automake variable and > have automake generate the dependency rules for you?) I'm clueless when it comes to automake. Todd -- Todd Sabin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
