[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: silent installs
From: |
Peter Johansson |
Subject: |
Re: silent installs |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:00:33 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
Wow. Pointless trying to add anything to discussion whether things are
good or evil.
But note this comment in depend2.am:
## Verbosity of FASTDEP rules
## --------------------------
## (1) Some people want to see what happens during make. They think
## @-commands are evil because hiding things hinders debugging.
## (2) Other people want to see only the important commands--those that
## may produce diagnostics, such as compiler invocations. They
## do not care about build details such as dependency generation
## (the if/then/else machinery in FASTDEP rules). Their point is
## that it is hard to spot diagnostics in a verbose output.
## (3) Other people want `make -s' to work as expected: silently.
## This way they can spot any diagnostic really easily.
##
## The second point suggests we hide rules with @ and that we `echo'
## only the relevant parts. However this goes against the two others.
## There are regular complaints about this on the mailing list, but
## it's hard to please everybody. On April 2003, William Fulton (from
## clan (3)) and Karl Berry (from clan (2)) agreed that folding the
## compile rules so that they are output on a single line (instead of 5)
## would be a good compromise. Actually we use two lines rather than one,
## because this way %SOURCE% is always located at the end of the first
## line and is therefore easier to spot. (We need an extra line when
## depbase is used.)
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
libtool can be used without make so I don't understand what you mean
here. To me it's like asking for `echo' to respect `make -s'.
Modifying Automake to generate Makefile.ins that respect 'make -s' would
be trivial. Remove all @-commands and calls to 'echo'. However, that
will never happen (I hope) because the default output for the typical
`make' will be terribly verbose. Just have a look in any autotools
generated Makefile and you realize you don't wanna see all that shell code.
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real warnings and problems.
Have you tried Automake's silent-rules option?
Peter
--
Peter Johansson
svndigest maintainer, http://dev.thep.lu.se/svndigest
yat maintainer, http://dev.thep.lu.se/yat
- Re: silent installs, (continued)
- Re: silent installs, Steffen Dettmer, 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, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Steffen Dettmer, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, John Calcote, 2010/01/29
- Re: silent installs, Steffen Dettmer, 2010/01/29
Re: silent installs,
Peter Johansson <=
Re: silent installs, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/29