* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:19PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-08/msg00024.html> > > I don't understand why this is such a controversial issue.
Then - you must not have had to deal with Makefile.in files several megabytes in size, - maybe you haven't had to deal much with bad user bug reports that provide far too little information to be valuable. I don't know how many times I've been wanting to stand in front of bug reporters and literally slap them with <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html> until it comes out of their nose, after the second mail of mine only asking for more details. But then again, most if not all developers I know have an editor that does near-perfect postprocessing of compiler warning/error messages. Heck, where missing, I've even sent patches to the Vim maintainer. (Yes, some of this reasoning is about this controversy in general, not applicable in the above case; but it's not me you should convince about Tommy's patch.) > Just have > automake prefix all commands in rules that are not already prefixed with @ > or - with $(PREFIX) (or some other variable.) Have default for PREFIX be > empty so the current behavior is unchanged. If someone wants to change > the output, they can redefine it with something like PREFIX="@echo > 'building $@ ...'; ". Minimal makefile 'bloat', no change to the default > behavior, and the flexibility for the output to be whatever is desired. I think the patch Tommy suggested was pretty similar to this description, but it did not address the concerns raised. Cheers, Ralf
