About Vassili Dzuba's <if> tag
hale.bob at gmx.net
Fri May 30 02:57:11 PDT 2003
"Michael S.Zick" <mszick at goquest.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:03052917454600.01460 at wolf686...
> On Thursday 29 May 2003 04:30 pm, HaleBob wrote:
> > "Gerard Beekmans" <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:200305291442.26543.gerard at linuxfromscratch.org...
> > > On May 29, 2003 10:16 am, Neven Has wrote:
> > > > Maybe <options>ignore_error</options>. Or something else?
> > >
> > > That'd be helpful. I could run gcc's "make check" then and watch the
> Wrong command.
> > > while it's working. It's guaranteed to fail but a good thing to run
> ??Guaranteed?? Do you file bug reports on the failures?
> > I currently get around that problem by using
> > <execute command="make -k check || exit 0" />
> That isn't a work-around, "make -k check" is the correct command.
> Ref: The gcc install directions.
first, yes, at least one error is guaranteed. (the c99)
second, "make -k check" will only continue on an encouted error
but at the end it will still exit with a non-zero status
causing nALFS to stop the build.
so my solution is a work-around as it will return with exit
code zero allowing nALFS to continue
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss