>>Just to be clear, I tried this makefile:
>>
>>$ cat Makefile
>>foo: FORCE ; @echo '$$? = $?'
>>FORCE:
>>
>>$ make
>>$? = FORCE
>>
>>every time, so I don't understand your comment that FORCE should be
>>visible in $?, as if it weren't visible there... it IS visible there?
>The
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I have some surprisingly good statistics. In ALT Linux Sisyphus
>(repository with 5000+ source packages) percentage of packages
>
> You have fallen for the trap [...]
It's full name (ALT GNU/*/Linux Sisyphus) is too long
%% "Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jb> That's why I referred to the first response to bug #8154, which
jb> doesn't have to do with building archives.
>> Just to be clear, I tried this makefile:
>>
>> $ cat Makefile
>> foo: FORCE ; @echo '$$? = $?'
>> FORCE:
>>
>> $ m
>>> "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 28.12.05 04:16 >>>
%% "Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> jb> In a makefile like presented in the first response to this
issue,
> jb> it is claimed that it is appropriate for $? to be empty.
However,
> jb> I would assume that if $? is empty and i
Well, for you that's true since you read info-gnu as well. I
expect that this applies to an extremely small minority of Debian
users though.
I think that the amount of people who read the NEWS file is about the
same as the amount of people who read info-gnu. :(
Cheers.
___
