On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 22:02 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 14:45 +0200, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > > On 30/08/2016 11:28, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm curious on what the intent of having the -k parameter in make -k > > > > check. > > > > To this point in time I always thought it was to continue with the > > > > tests even > > > > after unexpected test failures. But after removing the -k, the only > > > > error I got early on was > > > > > > > > autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def > > > > make[2]: autogen: Command not found > > > > > > > > which caused an early halt. > > > > With autogen installed, make check seemed to complete all the tests > > > > even though not all of them were successful. > > > We do not give any recipe for autogen, so it is assumed that it is > > > not installed, hence the "-k", to prevent "make check" from failing > > > early. > > > Yes, but should that not be explained in the text? i.e. Why we are doing it. > > We don't explain every option for every command. It should be fairly easy > to 'man make': > > -k, --keep-going > Continue as much as possible after an error. While the > target that failed, and those that depend on it, cannot be remade, the > other dependencies of these targets can be processed all the same. > > -- Bruce >
I'm not saying what option -k does, but why we are we doing it. man is not going to tell you why. If it's because autotools is not installed and it is a dependency for this target, then it should be stated rather than saying bypass any errors. I just thought it might be beneficial as a learning point. Regards, Wayne. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
