[Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 23, 2003, at 4:02 PM, Todd Sabin wrote:

> Maybe I've misunderstood you, but you may want to recheck the -k
> documentation and/or play with it some.  Your description above is
> exactly what make -k avoids.  For example, in the "make ethereal"
> scenario we're talking about, make -k notices that packet-x11.o failed
> to build, but it keeps going trying to build the other components of
> ethereal that don't depend on that.

That was precisely what I did *NOT* want to have happen.  I wanted to 
see the output of the very first command that failed, without *any* 
other output after it, even output reporting that other stuff not 
depending on the output of the failed build was built.  I did *NOT* 
want make to go on trying to do *anything* after something failed, so I 
did *not* want it run with the "-k" option - i.e., "-k" avoids what I 
*did* want.

> > Fixing this would probably require some time spent reading the
> > Automake documentation to see if there's a "right" way to handle this
> > or if we just have to add dependency rules.
>
> I try to maintain a healthy distance from automake/autoconf, so I have
> no idea how they're supposed to interact with dependencies, but this
> "feels" like it's "just" a matter of listing dependencies right in
> whatever input ultimately results in Makefile, for what that's worth.

That's probably the case, but there might be a way to have automake do 
a lot of that work for you, for example.  (I.e., do you just put 
explicit dependencies in, or do you set some automake variable and have 
automake generate the dependency rules for you?)