On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to see the
preprocessor and library search paths and any defines provided via the
command line so they
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to see the
preprocessor and library search paths and any defines provided via the
command line so they can be sure that the right bits are being used
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Some projects' code outputs the flags at the end of configure,
I think that's a nice overview, but actually, that's outside automake ;-)
As for automake, this lil hack could do something similar
# -*- Makefile -*-
BUILT_SOURCES = show
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to see the
preprocessor and library search paths and any defines provided via the
command line so they can be sure that the right bits are being used.
The config.status file provides this inf
On Sunday 2009-03-29 17:43, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> We can suggest using "make V=1" but end users are most likely to execute
> './configure', 'make', 'make install' without reading most of the package
> install documentation.
>[...]
> By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
CC id.o
Now your users won't see the "silent bugs" your package comes with.
I am seriously asking: Why are you doing this? To me, such "silence" means
cheating at one selves about the quality of a package and "playing down" the
bugs a package is s
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
Thomas Dickey wrote:
well (recalling previous discussion), the reason that Ralf's complaining
is that while it makes working on your program simpler it makes
finding bugs in _automake_ harder.
If you think seeing those long gcc command lines in a *core
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils.
>>> Well, if you think such a step to be helpful, I disagr
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils.
Well, if you think such a step to be helpful, I disagree.
Then you can build with "make V
