Rev 5398: (vila, jam) Get PQM running correctly again (bug #626667), in file:///home/pqm/archives/thelove/bzr/%2Btrunk/

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

    > On 8/31/2010 7:55 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
    >> On 1 September 2010 01:37, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
    >>> I'm a bit surprised it worked as well. I would be fine changing it to
    >>> "set -e ; $(PYTHON) .." if we think that will work better.
    >>> 
    >>> I can definitely say that running "make check" with that line gave me a
    >>> traceback and failure, and running without it did not.
    >> 
    >> Were you testing on cygwin?  It's just possible (though a bit
    >> surprising) that make's behaviour would be different there.
    >> 

    > Yes, but as mentioned I would be surprised if that was the difference.
    > However, if we trust it more, it makes sense to put it on the same line.

At a minimum, yes, it *doesn't* work (on a single line, being involed in
its own shell instance) in my pqm-like hardy setup. It's harmless though
as explained in a previous mail.

I second Martin's suspicion here regarding make and even extend it to
the shell provided by cygwin.

   Vincent