Re: libtool --silent based on MAKEFLAGS?

[Peter O'Gorman]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> 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.

Okay, it seems to be the best bet for now.

> 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).

Okay, I think --verbose is better than --no-silent, but have no idea if it
has been used before, or if it causes problems otherwise.

Assuming users/developers are not totally lacking in intelligence, I believe
we can ignore any interaction between --dry-run and --silent.

> 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).

The reason this can't go into LIBTOOLFLAGS is unclear to me (but I've been
drinking).

Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com