Script for compiling Xorg
delgarde at ihug.co.nz
Fri Aug 3 21:25:40 PDT 2007
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the blfs-support