Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:34:50PM CEST: >> Switching to silent-rules feels like progress, so I want it to be >> enabled by default, at least for packages I maintain. Of course, >> that's my judgment, and if enough people say that my enabling >> silent

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:34:50PM CEST: > > Switching to silent-rules feels like progress, so I want it to be > enabled by default, at least for packages I maintain. Of course, > that's my judgment, and if enough people say that my enabling > silent-rules broke their XYZ, I

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53:40AM CEST: >> What if a package maintainer wants to enable >> automake's silent-rules option by default? > > Then you should argue for this; see the arguments against it here: ... Hi Ralf, I think backwards compatibility

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Hi Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53:40AM CEST: > What if a package maintainer wants to enable > automake's silent-rules option by default? Then you should argue for this; see the arguments against it here: <

choosing the default for silent-rules

What if a package maintainer wants to enable automake's silent-rules option by default? Currently, even when I use AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([silent-rules]) it's disabled, and to get the behavior I want, I have to run ./configure --enable-silent-rules or "make V=0". Is there a recommended way to make the "