Re: silent installs

[Ralf Corsepius]

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:
> >
> > 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.
>    
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.

Ralf