[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:49:34 -0500 (CDT)
Alpine 2.01 (GSO 1266 2009-07-14)
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The problem is verifying "correctness of building" packages in batches.
i.e. to monitor/inspect CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, LDFLAGS etc. in compiler calls etc.
(NB: A package, which compiles without warning doesn't mean it is being built
What work does it cause except for using --disable-silent-rules at
configure time or V=1 at make time?
Exactly this is the problem.
The problem isn't the support for silent rules. The problem is that
some packages are enabling it by default because it looks like Linux
and Linux is cool. This is exactly the problem that I was concerned
about and why I fought to ensure that it is not enabled by default.
Unfortunately, it was made very easy for a package author to enable by
default and some package authors are now doing so even though it makes
open source software seem confusing and inconsistent.
It means automake is pushing around package maintainers to modify their
packages to automake's behavioral changes.
Quite annoying indeed.
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
- silent-rules (was: checking automake version in configure.ac), Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/10/06
- Re: silent-rules, Ralf Corsepius, 2009/10/13
- Re: silent-rules,
Bob Friesenhahn <=
- Re: silent-rules, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/10/14
- Re: silent-rules, Bob Friesenhahn, 2009/10/14
- Re: silent-rules, Ralf Corsepius, 2009/10/15
- Re: silent-rules, Yavor Doganov, 2009/10/15
- Re: silent-rules, Bob Friesenhahn, 2009/10/15
- Re: silent-rules, Ralf Corsepius, 2009/10/14