On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Richard Hacker wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:39:31PM CET: > > On Thursday 10 January 2008 08:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever > > > want's it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a > > > patch to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > That shouldn't bee too difficult. > > Misunderstanding again, this time my fault, sorry. > > What I meant was: even with > make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent > > there will be some leftover output done by libtool. If somebody wants > to fix that, be invited to provide a (complete) patch (best including > testsuite amend; the stresstest in Libtool HEAD would probably come in > handy). > > If you want all tools silenced which are called by make, then I suggest > to simply use > make >/dev/null || make
well, we're after the automatic output going away, not intended output. but i guess you could (reasonably) argue that status messages intended to be seen should be sent to stderr, not stdout ... -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
