Re: port doesn't exit with proper return value

2008-05-17 Thread Joshua Root
Ryan Schmidt wrote: On May 16, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Joshua Root wrote: Port's normal mode of operation is to run as many of the requested commands as possible and not exit when a command fails. It does this by suppressing the error status from the commands. This is certainly incorrect when

Re: port doesn't exit with proper return value

2008-05-17 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On May 17, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Joshua Root wrote: Ryan Schmidt wrote: On May 16, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Joshua Root wrote: Port's normal mode of operation is to run as many of the requested commands as possible and not exit when a command fails. It does this by suppressing the error status from

Re: port doesn't exit with proper return value

2008-05-17 Thread Joshua Root
Ryan Schmidt wrote: On May 17, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Joshua Root wrote: Ryan Schmidt wrote: On May 16, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Joshua Root wrote: Port's normal mode of operation is to run as many of the requested commands as possible and not exit when a command fails. It does this by suppressing

Re: parallel destroot problematic

2008-05-17 Thread Anders F Björklund
Ryan Schmidt wrote: Should we change MacPorts to only add the -j argument to the make command in the build phase, and not do so in the destroot phase? Sounds like a good idea to me. --anders ___ macports-dev mailing list

Re: port doesn't exit with proper return value

2008-05-17 Thread nox
Le 17 mai 08 à 08:56, Ryan Schmidt a écrit : I suppose I can see the point if you've asked for the installation of various unrelated ports, that it should continue to install the other ports even if one fails. But it seems like most people would want MacPorts to stop and issue and error if an

Re: parallel destroot problematic

2008-05-17 Thread Rainer Müller
Anders F Björklund wrote: Ryan Schmidt wrote: Should we change MacPorts to only add the -j argument to the make command in the build phase, and not do so in the destroot phase? Sounds like a good idea to me. Yes, this is good. We should also merge it to release_1_6 to get it included in

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

2008-05-17 Thread Alakazam
On 17 mai 08, at 07:32, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On May 14, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: Alakazam wrote: Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make it easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate portfiles, I think. Yes, in theory. But until

Re: arbitration of multiple master_sites

2008-05-17 Thread markd
-Sourceforge, gnu, etc., special mirrors go after sorted url list No. They get mixed in with the other master_sites and sorted. So if we had this master_sites keyword in port foo: master_sites \ sourceforge \ (ping resp t9) ftp://example1.org \(ping resp t4)

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

2008-05-17 Thread Andrea D'Amore
On 17/mag/08, at 21:26, Alakazam wrote: If we agree that that is the correct solution for octave-forge, I can look into this in the next couple of days. I'm not sure how to cope with portgroups (they have to be builtin into macports from what I've read). I wrote a small script to parse web

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

2008-05-17 Thread Rainer Müller
Andrea D'Amore wrote: On 17/mag/08, at 21:26, Alakazam wrote: If we agree that that is the correct solution for octave-forge, I can look into this in the next couple of days. I'm not sure how to cope with portgroups (they have to be builtin into macports from what I've read). [...] I