On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:20:42AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote: > > >On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >>On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote: > >> > >>>On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:24:47AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >>>>On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Even easier. Perhaps someone should post a patch for this feature! > >>>> > >>>>There is (it's been discussed on this mailing list more than once). > >>>>But I see you in one of the discussions.. > >>>> > >>>>For those who came late, here's one of the places where the automake > >>>>maintainer opted out: > >>>> > >>>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-08/msg00024.html > >>> > >>>That is unfortunate. 1 million users can't be wrong. > >> > >>Obviously you're not referring to automake (since _it_ doesn't have a > >>million developers writing scripts for it). > > > >No, I am referring to automake, its developers and USERS. I think most > >USERS want this feature, and I was just being silly saying it. > > well, there's two ways of reading the comment: (1) and the "million" users > are happy with the package as it standard, or (2) that the "million" users > would like the change (to make the package optionally quieter).
Sorry, I believe that most automake users would be happy if automake natively supported a feature to customize the output. I don't really see the filter as a reasonable solution to this problem. > (in either case, the number of users who actually notice this is very > likely an order of magnitude smaller, while the developers are again > another order of magnitude fewer - the point being that most users of > automake couldn't construct a makefile without some additional guidance). Hmmm. I see one other point of ambiguity. I was using this definition, users - people who untar and configure && make a package developer - person who creates a package using automake but now I realize you weren't using that definition. What I was originally suggesting is that I think there is literally thousands, to tens of thousands of people that would appreciate it if the automake output could be configurable when they do, ./configure && make. My friends know that I use automake to maintain a few packages. The most common question I get is, "Is it possible to make the output look like the linux kernel?" With all of that said, I still personally prefer the verbose output. To me, that is always the most useful. Bob Rossi
