Pending patches for generic build script

[Schulman.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov]

>> Whatever happened to the idea of getting rid of all the extraneous
&&\
>> crap in gbs?  Was the idea rejected, or forgotten?
>> --
>> Chuck
>
> Neither.  Someone actively producing new package versions (i.e., not
me)
> was supposed to test it and make sure it works properly.  This would
be
> especially useful on packages that don't use external source and don't
> require heavy modifications to the CVS version of the GBS.
>
> I'm not quite sure how to best go about doing this -- either change
the
> GBS now and ask people to test it (and retract if they complain), or
have
> people make the changes themselves and submit a patch afterwards, or
> create a CVS branch...  All three solutions have their drawbacks, but
I'm
> willing to make the actual changes in CVS if it's more convenient.
Any
> takers?

I'm doing a fair amount of packaging and gbs-building right now, and I'd
be
glad to implement and test this.  I don't have any opinion about which
is
the best method for submitting the changes.

Almost all of the trailing \'s can be removed, but a little more care is
needed in removing the &&'s, because these have a desirable effect of
stopping the processing as soon as an error occurs.  In most places this
isn't needed, but in some places it's useful.