From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.9]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C830FDDE06 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:14:06 +1100 (EST) To: Michael Buesch From: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: Do not fail build if mkimage is not available Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:08:51 +0100." <200712261708.51432.mb@bu3sch.de> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:14:04 +0100 Sender: wd@denx.de Message-Id: <20071227101404.2C05F2405E@gemini.denx.de> Cc: Andrew Morton , paulus@au.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <200712261708.51432.mb@bu3sch.de> you wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 17:03:43 Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Michael Buesch writes: > > > > > + set +e > > > mkimage -A ppc -O linux -T kernel -C gzip -a 00000000 -e 00000000 \ > > > $uboot_version -d "$vmz" "$ofile" > > > + [ $? -eq 0 ] || exit 0 > > > + set -e > > > > mkimage ... || exit 0 > > Could you PLEASE increase your verbosity? > Why is mkimage || exit 0 any better than my test? Because it works, while your's doesn't. Make runs each command in a new shell. Your "set +e" is in vain, and so is your test of the return code. Um... doesn't make throw an error anyway when the execution of mkimage fails? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Success in marriage is not so much finding the right person as it is being the right person.