libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: make -s


From: Richard Hacker
Subject: Re: make -s
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

On Sunday 13 January 2008 17:46, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Richard Hacker wrote on Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:21:50PM CET:

> > However, libtool is responsible for parsing *make's *FLAGS
>
> Now, this contradicts your statement (*) above, no?
Oppps, my mistake. Sorry for confusing everyone :-(
No, as you correctly read and interpreted, I meant to say that libtool should 
NOT parse their caller's *FLAGS. The caller (i.e. automake in this case) 
should be responsible for calling its subcommands with their respective 
silent flags set as far as they exist. Think of the case when a new supermake 
enters the scene and the authors of all the various tools that it calls have 
to implement yet another SUPERMAKEFLAGS. 
This concept does not scale well.

> If `make -s' were to influence libtool verbosity, there are several
> choices to implement this:
> - inside the libtool script, parse MAKEFLAGS
poor IMHO
> - automake hackery that puts necessary code in Makefile.in so that upon
>   `make -s', libtool is called with --silent
better

> The second choice leaves users of make-without-automake in the cold, ...
It is the duty of the various *make developers to implement a silent mode...
> but 
> my assumption is that none of you care about it (of course they could
> always copy that implementation).  It also carries the burden of larger
> Makefiles, likely even more verbose output when `make' is issued without
> `-s'.
Why should the output of a make without '-s' be larger? I do not see this 
necessity.
>
> The problem of implementing the required logic in a Makefile is that,
> while it is quite cheap to do with GNU make, I only see ugly solutions
> that work with portable make.  They either
> - require the choice of silency to be made at configure time already,
Poor IMHO. make's "-s" switch is dynamic in nature and this spirit should be 
kept with a "silent" or "not silent" implementation is planned
 
> If someone sees a way to avoid these, I'd love to hear about it.
There should be some <if make_is_silent; AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS += --silent; endif> 
construct inside Makefile.in. However, I have not seen any if...endif 
constructs in Makefile.in as a starting point for writing portable make 
commands.
>
> FWIW, here's a patch that goes the "ugly design" way of implementing
> this in libtool, which I think is portable.
At least it works inside the autoconf, automake, libtool toolset. This is a 
very common setup.

But thanks for the patch. I'll be using it shortly. It is more professional 
than my one ;-)

Regards
- Richard




reply via email to

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