[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: silent installs

From: Joakim Tjernlund
Subject: Re: silent installs
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:35:50 +0100

Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
> On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
> >
> > I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
> What for?

I just said that below.

> > When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
> > all one should see is real warnings and problems.
> Silent make rules are harmful:
> E.g.
> - Bogus defines
> - Bogus include/library paths
> - Incorrect CFLAGS/...
> - link library order
> typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.

Not seeing any warnings at all because it drowns in hundreds
of status messages is an even bigger problem.

> Silent building is only appropriate when a user knows what he is doing
> and when explicitly asking of it. When getting used to doing so rsp.

Right, and when I type make -s I ask for a silent build so I only
see that problems that different tools such as gcc reports.

> when making silent make-rules the default, packages tend to gradually
> rott, because bugs tend to slip through unnoticed.

I doubt that, but that is besides the point. Both types, silent/non-silent,
has its uses but autotools does not give me a choice. Depending on
what I want to do ATM I would like to have a choice.


reply via email to

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