Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> Sorry, I'm making a big mess of this. Please ignore the previous one. I
> used set -x instead of set -e
>
> On 25-04-13 15:25, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> > On 25-04-13 11:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> >> Lets see the patch first and then see if we can make it pr
Sorry, I'm making a big mess of this. Please ignore the previous one. I
used set -x instead of set -e
On 25-04-13 15:25, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
On 25-04-13 11:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Lets see the patch first and then see if we can make it prettier.
Erik
Sure. Patch attached.
>F
On 25-04-13 11:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Lets see the patch first and then see if we can make it prettier.
Erik
Sure. Patch attached.
>From bae4658ef6f18db9bb8c49fecd01f6eade25554a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martijn van Beurden
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:20:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] A
Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> I also found a possible solution: using set -e just above that
> replaygain test for loop. That should exit the whole script if a single
> line returns an non-zero exit status, which makes it possible to let
> 'exit' abort not only the loop but the whole script. May
