[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: silent installs
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: silent installs |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:33:29 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28) |
* Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 02:57:40PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote on 2010/01/30 00:34:17:
> > First off, `make -s' is both POSIX and portable. Conceptually, `make
> > -s' has nothing to do with the `silent-rules' option that recent
>
> Exactly, and I am asking for autotools/libtool not to output
> anything that isn't a real warning/error when when -s is passed to make.
Likely that won't happen. It is ugly and hard to detect portably from
within a make rule whether -s has been passed to make. It is so much
easier for you to just use
make >/dev/null
for which this:
> After all, it is custom that stderr is reserved for errors/warnings only.
is another great argument. ;-)
BTW, I often use
make >/dev/null || make
if I don't use a build log, to see the final command verbosely.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: silent installs, (continued)
- 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, 2010/01/29
Re: silent installs, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/29