[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: silent installs
From: |
Ralf Corsepius |
Subject: |
Re: silent installs |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:21:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 |
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
What for?
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real warnings and problems.
Silent make rules are harmful:
E.g.
- Bogus defines
- Bogus include/library paths
- Incorrect CFLAGS/...
- link library order
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Silent building is only appropriate when a user knows what he is doing
and when explicitly asking of it. When getting used to doing so rsp.
when making silent make-rules the default, packages tend to gradually
rott, because bugs tend to slip through unnoticed.
Ralf
- silent installs, Joakim Tjernlund, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs,
Ralf Corsepius <=
- Re: silent installs, Joakim Tjernlund, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Ralf Corsepius, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Ralf Corsepius, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Joakim Tjernlund, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Joakim Tjernlund, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Joakim Tjernlund, 2010/01/30
- Re: silent installs, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/31