Re: silent installs

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello,

let me address one part of the issue here (for the moment let's
ignore the separate libtool --mode=install verbosity issue):

* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 05:47:40PM CET:
> You don't need that much programming skills to fix this, infact, all
> the scaffolding is in place.  Take a look in automake/lib/am/progs.am
> and automake/lib/am/script.am, and the %SILENT% macro; you'd need to
> replace occurences of `echo' with a variable (since we cannot just use
> @ to silence the rules), that expands to either : (though, I think
> "INSTALL file" would be nicer than complete silence) or echo depending
> on if are using V=0 or V=1.

Thinking about this a bit more, I don't really see the advantage here.
You propose to replace, upon silent-rules and --enable-silent-rules,
outputs like
  /usr/bin/install -m 644 file /usr/local/share/foo/file

with
  INSTALL   file

right?

Now, current Automake tries hard to install multiple files at once,
because that is a lot faster.  Would your proposal be to replace
  /usr/bin/install -m 644 file1 file2 file3 file4 file5 file6 file7 file8 file9 
file10 file11 file12 file13 file14 file15 file16 /usr/local/share/foo/

with
  INSTALL   file1 file2 file3 file4 file5 file6 file7 file8 file9 file10 file11 
file12 file13 file14 file15 file16

?

Am I the only one who thinks that the difference isn't all that great,
and that the resulting output is about as ugly but less informative as
the one that it replaces?

Thanks,
Ralf