Re: silent installs

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Peter Johansson <address@hidden> wrote on 2010/01/31 16:28:52:
>
> On 1/31/10 6:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ralf Wildenhues<address@hidden>  wrote on 2010/01/31 08:38:38:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> My problem with that change is that, the relinking and finish
> >> really are information that some users need to know about.
> >> If you don't --finish, then your libraries won't be found by
> >> the runtime linker.  If relinking happens as another user than
> >> the one who ran `make all', that is a problem to know about, too,
> >> because it can lead to problems with file ownership and directory
> >> write permission.
> >>
> > But they are not errors so they should not be directed to stderr no matter 
> > what.
> > Then one can argue if --silent should suppress these msgs too or not.
> >
> >
> >
> Moving these messages to stdout would have the positive side effect that
> `make distcheck > /dev/null' would become silent.
>
> That would be nice but is not worth it, if it means users miss the
> --finsih warning and end up sending bug reports to me about runtime errors.

There has to be some middle ground here. If the user does > /dev/null then
he in trouble anyway. Why would he do that in the first place? And
what if he does > /dev/null 2>&1 too? If the user really feels that
he needs to use > /dev/null, then perhaps there is something else that
is wrong such as too much output in the first place?

 Jocke