[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: silent-rules

From: Ralf Corsepius
Subject: Re: silent-rules
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:23:10 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4

On 10/14/2009 07:05 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ 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?
OK, I realize you don't have much clues about building rpms.

Wrt. question: Nope, this is not possible, because V is a much too general variable name to set it globally. The likelihood it will clash with another V amongst the 1000s of packages Fedora consists of is simply too high.

automake should have used a name-space guarded variable, instead or not be using any variable at all but be relying on a configure-time option (--enable-verbose or similar) only.

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?
That's what we currently are doing:

You (automake) have pushed us around to tell them:
"Add V=1" to prevent automake from producing it's silent build.logs.

I guess, I don't have to emphasize that this fuels the already very vocal community which is agitating against automake.

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.
IMO, removing AM_SILENT is the only option. It's poorly implemented ("V") kid-stuff too cater people who have little clues about the pitfalls of building.

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?
Well, people doing so are from the club of "people having little clues" about the pitfalls lurking in building.

IMO, you should remove AM_SILENT from automake and the case will be closed.


reply via email to

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