Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2014-12-29 17:44:54) >> Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: >>> But (judging only from above comments) there might be another issue >>> with that loop not handling errors correctly. Perhaps as simple as a >>> "set -e" (although I seem to recall that maintainer scripts shouldn't >>> blindly do that). >> >> Yes, there should be probably a declaration >> >> SHELL := sh -e >> >> which would error out when anything in shell command goes wrong. But I >> think its better to target this post Jessie. > > I recommend to not unconditonally instruct make to fail any and all > shell invocations, but care for error handling separately for each call. > > E.g. when using pipes, failures may be hidden, which I fear has a higher > risk of being missed if not every single shell call is inspected for > error handling. >
I see. What is your way of handling the shell errors?. I would be happy to adopt your version :). -- Vasudev Kamath http://copyninja.info Connect on ~friendica: copyni...@samsargika.copyninja.info IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net} GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4 C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
