[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 14:37:34 +0100

Peter Johansson <address@hidden> wrote on 2010/01/29 18:00:33:
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
> >
> >
> Wow. Pointless trying to add anything to discussion whether things are
> good or evil.
> But note this comment in
> ## Verbosity of FASTDEP rules
> ## --------------------------
> ## (1) Some people want to see what happens during make.  They think
> ##     @-commands are evil because hiding things hinders debugging.
> ## (2) Other people want to see only the important commands--those that
> ##     may produce diagnostics, such as compiler invocations.  They
> ##     do not care about build details such as dependency generation
> ##     (the if/then/else machinery in FASTDEP rules).  Their point is
> ##     that it is hard to spot diagnostics in a verbose output.
> ## (3) Other people want `make -s' to work as expected: silently.
> ##     This way they can spot any diagnostic really easily.
> ##
> ## The second point suggests we hide rules with @ and that we `echo'
> ## only the relevant parts.  However this goes against the two others.
> ## There are regular complaints about this on the mailing list, but
> ## it's hard to please everybody.  On April 2003, William Fulton (from
> ## clan (3)) and Karl Berry (from clan (2)) agreed that folding the
> ## compile rules so that they are output on a single line (instead of 5)
> ## would be a good compromise.  Actually we use two lines rather than one,
> ## because this way %SOURCE% is always located at the end of the first
> ## line and is therefore easier to spot.  (We need an extra line when
> ## depbase is used.)
> > I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
> >
> libtool can be used without make so I don't understand what you mean
> here. To me it's like asking for `echo' to respect `make -s'.

I asking that libtool should not emit bogus warnings.
The relinking and finish msgs are not warnings but just info
or a reminder. The same goes for all those install messages.

> Modifying Automake to generate Makefile.ins that respect 'make -s' would
> be trivial. Remove all @-commands and calls to 'echo'. However, that
> will never happen (I hope) because the default output for the typical
> `make' will be terribly verbose. Just have a look in any autotools
> generated Makefile and you realize you don't wanna see all that shell code.

I didn't say that, did I?

> > When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
> > all one should see is real warnings and problems.
> >
> Have you tried Automake's silent-rules option?

Doesn't fix any of my issues.

reply via email to

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