[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: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:27:57 +0100

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> wrote on 2010/01/29 17:47:40:
>    > I was refering to AM_SILENT_RULES, which supresses `make all'
>    > output; so this is not a very controversial topic, it is already
>    > in automake and used by several projects.  Would you like to work
>    > on this feature?  The maintainers can't accept a patch that
>    > doesn't exist after all...
>    I am afraid I not very handy with the program language skills
>    needed for this. The best I can do is a small patch to
>    for the most trivial part. Getting rid of the install msgs is over
>    my head.
> You don't need that much programming skills to fix this, infact, all
> the scaffolding is in place.  Take a look in automake/lib/am/
> and automake/lib/am/, and the %SILENT% macro; you'd need to
> replace occurences of `echo' with a variable (since we cannot just use
> @ to silence the rules), that expands to either : (though, I think
> "INSTALL file" would be nicer than complete silence) or echo depending
> on if are using V=0 or V=1.

I am sorry, I don't have the time to invest learning the ins of autotools.

>    Index:
>    ===================================================================
>    ---   (revision 57662)
>    +++   (working copy)
>    @@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@
>           relink_command=`$ECHO "X$relink_command" | $Xsed -e 
> "address@hidden@%%"`
>         fi
>    -     func_warning "relinking \`$file'"
>    +     $opt_silent || func_warning "relinking \`$file'"
> The problem with this approach is that is part of libtool,

How is that a problem? libtool also needs fixing and this was what
I could do.

> and doen't inherit (as far as I remeber) and of the rule you pass to
> automake/make.  So one would need to pass down something via automake
> to libtool, which might get cumbersome. :-(

uhmm, --silent needs to be passed otherwise nothing would be silent
in libtool. At least passing --silent directly to libtool works :)

> Also, you'd probobly want to put the check in func_warning anyway, that
> way you'd silence all invocations of func_warning.

No, real warnings should be displayed. These two are not warnings
but a notice/info only.

> Sadly, I don't have the source here to whip up a patch; but it is a
> easy patch that I'm confident you can do by yourself :-)

I think I just did, I don't see another coming.

reply via email to

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