Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:50:33 +0100 Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On 11/02/2008, David Paleino wrote: > > This seems to me more hackish than it should; is there a cleaner way > > to do it (maybe I'm just complicating myself and don't see The Easy > > Way [1])? > > You could have a look at how cdbs does it, which might help. I'll do it, thanks. > > [1] I know that using "[ ! test ] || ..." is pretty awkward, but it > > didn't work with "[ test ] &&". Maybe "&&" should be escaped > > somehow? I don't really know. > > That's simple, compare: > [ foo ] && bar > [ ! foo ] || bar > > If foo, then bar, and success. > If not foo, then not bar, and failure. Here is your problem. > > The foo/bar relationship is the same, but not the return code, which > is problematic in a Makefile, since it introduces a failure, thus make > stops (see lintian about ignoring the errors in the clean target). Not true: $ touch foo $ [ -f foo ] && true (1) $ echo $? 0 $ [ ! -f foo ] || true (2) $ echo $? 0 $ Those relationships are: (1) (true) and (true) == true (2) (false) or (true) == true And the lintian warning suggests: [ ! -f Makefile ] || $(MAKE) distclean but I can't understand why it couldn't suggest something like: [ -f Makefile ] && $(MAKE) distclean which triggers the same result (at least in bash -- that's why I'm supposing that "&&" needs to be escaped somehow in Makefiles). Regards, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
