[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 15:26:18 +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 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius<address@hidden>  wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines [............]
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.

Could you please explain that?

Example: Compling a package under linux

configure --prefix=/usr ....
gcc -DCONFDIR="/foo/bar" -DIRIX ...

Using silent make rules you will not notice the bogus -DCONFDIR at compilation time. If you're providing package binaries your users will likely encounter run-time errors.

Whether -DIRIX will cause problems would depend on a package's details.
It's not unlikely compilation will succeed but use source-code which wasn't intended to be used under Linux.

Silent building is only appropriate when a user knows what he is doing and
when explicitly asking of it.

typing "make -s" is explicitly asking, isn't it?

With gnu make, yes. But is it portable to other makes?


reply via email to

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