[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: silent-rules

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: silent-rules
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:05:29 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-09)

[ dropping autoconf@ ]

* Ralf Corsepius wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 05:20:30PM CEST:
> On 10/13/2009 04:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >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. for correctness
> >>
> >>(NB: A package, which compiles without warning doesn't mean it
> >>is being built correctly.)
> >>
> >>>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.

I still fail to understand.  What problem do you have with either
  echo export V=1 >> ~/.bashrc

  echo enable_silent_rules=no >> ${CONFIG_SITE-/usr/local/share/}

once on your distro build daemon and be done with it?

This is still a serious question, and I haven't seen anything in your
replies that answers it.  Yes, it may be pushing around distro
maintainers, but it's more of a gentle nudge than anything else if you
ask me.

Or is it that you need to teach bug reporters to do this?

Complaining alone won't change the situation, unless we also find ways
to improve things.  Going back isn't an option, for several reasons,
so let's see how to best go forward.

> >The problem isn't the support for silent rules.  The problem is
> >that some packages are enabling it by default
> Indeed. What makes the situation worse is some upstreams shipping
> "common" aclocal-macros which enable it by default. This cause quite
> some amount of surprises when analysing buildlogs of packages which
> for whatever reasons run autoreconf/

Well, isn't that worthy of a bug report to that upstream then?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]