Peter Johansson <troj...@gmail.com> wrote on 2010/01/29 18:00:33: > > Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s? > > > > > Wow. Pointless trying to add anything to discussion whether things are > good or evil. > > But note this comment in depend2.am: > > ## Verbosity of FASTDEP rules > > ## -------------------------- > ## (1) Some people want to see what happens during make. They think > ## @-commands are evil because hiding things hinders debugging. > ## (2) Other people want to see only the important commands--those that > ## may produce diagnostics, such as compiler invocations. They > ## do not care about build details such as dependency generation > ## (the if/then/else machinery in FASTDEP rules). Their point is > ## that it is hard to spot diagnostics in a verbose output. > ## (3) Other people want `make -s' to work as expected: silently. > ## This way they can spot any diagnostic really easily. > ## > ## The second point suggests we hide rules with @ and that we `echo' > ## only the relevant parts. However this goes against the two others. > ## There are regular complaints about this on the mailing list, but > ## it's hard to please everybody. On April 2003, William Fulton (from > ## clan (3)) and Karl Berry (from clan (2)) agreed that folding the > ## compile rules so that they are output on a single line (instead of 5) > ## would be a good compromise. Actually we use two lines rather than one, > ## because this way %SOURCE% is always located at the end of the first > ## line and is therefore easier to spot. (We need an extra line when > ## depbase is used.) > > > I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s. > > > libtool can be used without make so I don't understand what you mean > here. To me it's like asking for `echo' to respect `make -s'.
I asking that libtool should not emit bogus warnings. The relinking and finish msgs are not warnings but just info or a reminder. The same goes for all those install messages. > > Modifying Automake to generate Makefile.ins that respect 'make -s' would > be trivial. Remove all @-commands and calls to 'echo'. However, that > will never happen (I hope) because the default output for the typical > `make' will be terribly verbose. Just have a look in any autotools > generated Makefile and you realize you don't wanna see all that shell code. I didn't say that, did I? > > > > When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems > > all one should see is real warnings and problems. > > > Have you tried Automake's silent-rules option? Doesn't fix any of my issues.
