On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 05:01 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Simon Geard wrote these words on 08/03/07 04:32 CST: > > > If the instructions aren't part of a script, what exactly does the "bash > > -e" step contribute? Start a new shell for running commands in, which > > should exit any time one of them fails? The -e might be useful in an > > shell script (i.e the #!/bin/bash case), but what's the point for an > > interactive shell? > > Wouldn't it be so that if one of the 10 zillion packages that are slated > to be installed fails, that the procedure halts at that point so the > remaining packages are not attempted to be installed?
"The procedure halts" - what procedure? This is a user typing commands into an interactive shell - the only procedure is the one in the user's head. All that will happen if a command fails is that the "bash -e" shell will exit, returning them to the one they ran it from. At which point the 'procedure' will continue in the parent shell. Again, I don't see any merit in using -e in an interactive shell. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
