On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
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.
This may be true, but if an option is prov
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
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.
That's a more reasonable estimate...
My
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,
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
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!
> >>
> >>T
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 on
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..
>
> F
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
Dizzy wrote:
CC init/version.o
Displaying the whole compile line is pretty useless in my opinion...
Indeed it is and when it errors (the only moment when you need to know the
command that errored) it can be displayed as people said in
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
In addition to that, its also possible though more work to disable
echo but to emit the command line after a command fails. Not only do
...
agree (that's the type of rote repetition for which automake is supposedly
intended - forcing the users to alway
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
maintaine
On Friday 06 July 2007 11:49, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dizzy wrote:
> >> CC init/version.o
> >>
> >> Displaying the whole compile line is pretty useless in my opinion...
> >
> > Indeed it is and when it errors (the only moment when you need to know
> > the command that errored) it can
Hi,
Dizzy wrote:
CC init/version.o
Displaying the whole compile line is pretty useless in my opinion...
Indeed it is and when it errors (the only moment when you need to know the
command that errored) it can be displayed as people said in other replies.
No, there may be errors th
On Thursday 05 July 2007 23:21, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> how can I modify the output of an Automake project so that it does not
> display the whole command line, but simply the short version like the
> Linux Kernel does, e.g.:
I think I have asked about a similar thing some time ago
Bob Rossi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:34:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
A big difference between Automake projects and building the Linux kernel
is that building the linux kernel is practically assured to succeed where
as building Automake pr
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
>> A big difference between Automake projects and building the Linux
>> kernel is that building the linux kernel is practically assured to
>> succeed where as building Automake projects may fail and require
>> correction by the en
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:34:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> >A big difference between Automake projects and building the Linux kernel
> >is that building the linux kernel is practically assured to succeed where
> >as building Automake projects
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
A big difference between Automake projects and building the Linux kernel is
that building the linux kernel is practically assured to succeed where as
building Automake projects may fail and require correction by the end user
(who needs to see what is
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Johannes Bauer wrote:
Hello list,
how can I modify the output of an Automake project so that it does not
display the whole command line, but simply the short version like the
Linux Kernel does, e.g.:
CC init/version.o
CC init/do_mounts.o
LD init/mounts.o
Hello list,
how can I modify the output of an Automake project so that it does not
display the whole command line, but simply the short version like the
Linux Kernel does, e.g.:
CC init/version.o
CC init/do_mounts.o
LD init/mounts.o
CC init/initramfs.o
CC init/c
19 matches
Mail list logo
