Re: libtool --silent based on MAKEFLAGS?

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:49:53AM CET:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> >Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>* Martin Waitz wrote on Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:50:42PM CET:
> >>>
> >>>could libtool take a look at MAKEFLAGS and automatically use --silent
> >>>mode when 's' is included in the make flags?
> >>
> >>That sounds like a good idea -- in principle.
> >
> >I don't really like this idea, no real reason, just that looking at some
> >other program's environment variable feels wrong.
> >
> >I haven't even looked at your patch, and please don't consider this a veto,
> >just want to know if there is any third alternative.
> 
> I am pretty happy with my configure-based hack.  It assumes that 
> libtool will work as expected so it is not necessary for the user to 
> see everything by default.  Unfortunately, when things go wrong, it is 
> necessary to reconfigure in order to debug libtool.
> 
> The MAKEFLAGS approach makes an assumption.  It assumes that libtool 
> is being driven by 'make' rather than some other tool like Jam, Ant, 
> an IDE, or some other alternative build tool.  There is no requirement 
> for a project using libtool to also use 'make'.

I consider both of your points against using MAKEFLAGS well taken.
But, with all due respect, I really don't like the configure-based hack,
because it requires a change by the package author, whereas the wish for
silence can conceivably be an end-user request.  This end-user should
not have to change configure.ac ((s)he doesn't have Autoconf, remember?)

So, how about this?  Let's have Automake include $(LIBTOOLFLAGS) in
their libtool invocation.  The user can then use
  LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
at either configure or make time.  This approach is Automake-centric,
but other buildtools can do similar.

Still, please answer my other two questions, namely:
| Two things I'm unsure about:
| - whether `-v|--verbose' was or is in use w.r.t libtool.  Should I
|   use that rather than --no-silent?
| - interaction between `-n|--dry-run' and silence.
|   Should --dry-run imply --no-silent?
|   (One could imagine just trying to syntax-check with --dry-run
|   --silent; in some future version of libtool).

because if the user is supposed to be able to override whatever
Makefile.am gives, we also need the flag turning off --silent.
(--dry-run would be another valid setting of LIBTOOLFLAGS, BTW).

While thinking about this, we never solved the "can't put -all-static
and the like into LDFLAGS" problem.  One thing to do about this would be
to also allow a LIBTOOL_LDFLAGS variable (someone other than me please
decide over the number and location of underscores within the variable
names).

What do you think?

Regards,
Ralf