libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: make -s


From: Bob Rossi
Subject: Re: make -s
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:19:55 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:15:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58:09PM CET:
> > > On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > What I meant was: even with
> > > >   make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> > > >
> > > > there will be some leftover output done by libtool.  If somebody wants
> > > > to fix that, be invited to provide a (complete) patch (best including
> > > > testsuite amend; the stresstest in Libtool HEAD would probably come in
> > > > handy).
> > > >
> > > > If you want all tools silenced which are called by make, then I suggest
> > > > to simply use
> > > >   make >/dev/null || make
> > >
> > > well, we're after the automatic output going away, not intended output.
> >
> > So what's intended output?  That by make, libtool is apparently not.
> > What about makeinfo, texi2dvi, dvips?  autoconf/aclocal/automake reruns,
> > configure reruns?  Are you suggesting each of them parse $MAKEFLAGS and
> > go silent with that, too?
> >
> > libtool need not be invoked by make alone.  There are multitudinous
> > other build systems, some of which call libtool at times.  Should
> > libtool parse their $TOOLFLAGS too?
> >
> > I merely think that MAKEFLAGS is for make, and other flags should be for
> > other programs.  And hey, that's just my personal opinion, not cast in
> > stone or anything; but I would like to be shown why another choice is
> > better.
> 
> i think we're focusing on the "big" offenders here.  libtool is certainly 
> much 
> more prevalent than any other tool cited here when combined with autotools.  
> taking that into consideration, the fact that libtool outputs status 
> information that amounts pretty closely (almost exactly) to what make itself 
> would output, the idea of having it be autosilenced according to -s is a 
> common (and logical) expectation for people.  i'm not saying this is grounds 
> for "this must be done!", just putting it out there.

Exactly, I would think most people would not expect the current
behavior. I would say "Hey, I told make to be quit, but it's not."

Ingorance is bliss.

Bob Rossi




reply via email to

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