[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: silent installs

From: Ralf Corsepius
Subject: Re: silent installs
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:05:04 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1

On 01/29/2010 09:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
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.
Well, then I must be missing something.
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:

- 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.
Simply create build logs and analyse them?

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.
Believe me, you are in error. Just wait, you will sooner or later see this happen with any non-trivial package.

There are many examples for this around.


reply via email to

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