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
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=1".
>> Since I bootstrap using autom
Ralf Corsepius writes:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Since I bootstrap using automake from its "next" branch, it's
>> enabled for me. And that translates to enhanced Makefile.in
>> files in the tarballs I generate. The net result is that when
>> you run "make" (using distributed Makefile.in files),
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.
Since I bootstrap using automake from its "next" branch, it's
enabled for me. And that translates
El Sábado 28 Marzo 2009ES 17:14:10 Jan Engelhardt escribió:
> On Saturday 2009-03-28 16:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >Hi Bob, Jim,
> >
> >* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 04:40:16PM CET:
> >> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >>> I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules opt
On Saturday 2009-03-28 16:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>Hi Bob, Jim,
>
>* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 04:40:16PM CET:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>>> I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
>>> that I'm making it the default (when possible) for co
Hi Bob, Jim,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 04:40:16PM CET:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
>> that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils.
[...]
>> CC id.o
>
> What happens when things go wr
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils.
Since I bootstrap using automake from its "next" branch, it's
enabled for me. And that translates to enhanced Makefile.in
files in the t
con
CCLD who
CCLD chgrp
CCLD chown
CCLD chmod
...
rather than less-readable lines full of gcc command-line options.
>From 9f39fa8559a8f87e1199f11f6cee295ac8cf6781 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:48:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] build: use automake's
17 matches
Mail list logo
