[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: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:59:14 +0100

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote on 2010/01/31 08:33:29:
> * Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 02:57:40PM CET:
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote on 2010/01/30 00:34:17:
> > > First off, `make -s' is both POSIX and portable.  Conceptually, `make
> > > -s' has nothing to do with the `silent-rules' option that recent
> >
> > Exactly, and I am asking for autotools/libtool not to output
> > anything that isn't a real warning/error when when -s is passed to make.
> Likely that won't happen.  It is ugly and hard to detect portably from
> within a make rule whether -s has been passed to make.  It is so much
> easier for you to just use
>   make >/dev/null
> for which this:
> > After all, it is custom that stderr is reserved for errors/warnings only.
> is another great argument.  ;-)

Why not? What is the reason autotools feels the need to print informal
msgs on the error channel?

> BTW, I often use
>   make >/dev/null || make
> if I don't use a build log, to see the final command verbosely.

You just made my point for me. You "often use" some trickery to get
what make -s was designed for.


reply via email to

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