[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Jun 12 03:21:44 2005]: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: > > > Whatever the problem is, I do not agree with removing 'set -e'. > Setting > > -e ensures that an error that happens within a loop is propagated to > > become the error *of* the loop (or actually, the whole shell > session), > > which is therefore returned to make. Without 'set -e', errors may > > happen withing the loops or a series of commands with make not > knowing > > about it. Instead, make will only get the exit code from the last > > command executed. > > > I guess I just don't understand. I don't see why it succeeds on any > platform. The "set -e" fails if an exit code is anything other than > "0". Installing the manual pages involves calling grep with arguments > known to succeed at times and fail at times, sometimes giving exit > code of "0" and sometimes of "1". That seems to be why "set -e" stops > the loop. For example:
Aha, *that's* what we need to debug then. BTW, the exit code of a pipe is usually the exit code of the last command in the chain. So you can't really blame grep, since their result is piped into a parenthesised complex command. I'm willing to be either 'read' or 'util/point.sh' return with an exit code other than 0, and that it could be enough to have an 'exit 0' at the end of the complex command (and maybe another 'set -e' before the while loop). -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
