Re: bug#8665: automake should offer APIs to honour silent-rules verbosity from shell code in Makefiles

Reviving and oldish bug report (and CC:ing the Automake list now). Reference: I wrote: > > A relevant excerpt [from the manual]: > > You can add your own variables, so strings of your own choice are shown. > The following snippet shows how you

verbosity of test failure feedback (was: Automake 1.11.1 glitch?)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 06:00:04PM CEST: > Darn, I've been sloppy: I should have also asked you to provide > us with the (tarred) content of the temporary test directory > `tests/silent5.dir'. Could you kindly send this over to the list > too? > > ( to self and to Ralf:

Re: verbosity

* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 09:50:31PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > - you must not have had to deal with Makefile.in files several megabytes > > in size, > > No, I haven't. The largest I've had was about half a megabyte. I still > don't think prefixing a few commands

Re: verbosity

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:19PM CET: >> Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> >> I don't understand why this is such a controversial issue. > > Then > - you must not have had to dea

Re: verbosity

* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:19PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > I don't understand why this is such a controversial issue. Then - you must not have had to deal with Makefile.in files s

Re: verbosity

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Christopher Sean Morrison wrote on Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 07:55:27PM CET: >> Counterproductive presumptuous flamings aside, there are compelling >> arguments on both sides of the issue for having or quelling verbose >> compilation output. > > Yes, the flaming all helps

Re: verbosity

* Christopher Sean Morrison wrote on Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 07:55:27PM CET: > Counterproductive presumptuous flamings aside, there are compelling > arguments on both sides of the issue for having or quelling verbose > compilation output. Yes, the flaming all helps nothing and contributes nothing

Re: verbosity

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: You can get bit by having a compilation be too silent or by drowning the compiling users with detail. I don't recall ever being "bit" by being drowned in detail, but I have been "bit" many times by packages which only admit to compiling "

Re: verbosity

Counterproductive presumptuous flamings aside, there are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue for having or quelling verbose compilation output. Depending on at least the development environment, requirements, expectations, and values of the developers, I've been in situations w

Re: verbosity

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 06:20 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote: This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings and such in all th

Re: verbosity

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 06:20 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote: > >> This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings > >> and such in all the noise. > > I could not disagr

Re: verbosity

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote: This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings and such in all the noise. I could not disagree more. attitudes like that are why some of us don't bother using your

Re: verbosity

On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on moving an existing project to use autotools. One of the > issues that I've encountered is that the build process is very verbose. > Due to factors outside my control, the CPPFLAGS used for compiling contain > a ve

Re: verbosity

Jason Kraftcheck wrote: > This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings > and such in all the noise. I have heard this infrequently from posters but I don't experience this myself and here is why. I think I will go out on a limb and say that most (many?) developers use

Re: verbosity

Hello Jason, * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:28:24PM CET: > > I'm working on moving an existing project to use autotools. One of the > issues that I've encountered is that the build process is very verbose. Use alias mymake='make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent' (with Automake >

Re: verbosity

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:28:24AM -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on moving an existing project to use autotools. One of the > issues that I've encountered is that the build process is very verbose. > Due to factors outside my control, the CPPFLAGS used for compiling contain

verbosity

Hi, I'm working on moving an existing project to use autotools. One of the issues that I've encountered is that the build process is very verbose. Due to factors outside my control, the CPPFLAGS used for compiling contain a very long list of include flags. This results in the compile command bei

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Howdy Ralf, I so sometimes instruct them to do that, usually when helping people interactively, and I get mixed results. Some get it right and I get a condensed log, some actually don't and I end up spending even more time trying to figure out what went wrong on their end (typos, misunderstand

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Hi Sean, * Christopher Sean Morrison wrote on Sat, May 20, 2006 at 07:26:39PM CEST: > > Usually, the problem from a purely practical standpoint is that the > error is rarely at the very end, it's somewhere probably in the last > 50-200 lines or so of the output depending on the situation. So

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

ave the opposite problem of users > providing the gargantuan logs when all I needed to see was "somewhere > near the end" of the log (due to the verbosity of make, compiler, > linker, etc). > > Usually, the problem from a purely practical standpoint is that the > error i

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:29:34 +1000 From: Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reducing verbosity of automake To: automake@gnu.org, Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All patches I've seen add quite a bit of bloat to Makefile.in's, for dubious value (remember th

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

* Brendon Costa wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:29:34PM CEST: > > I can imagine that a makefile only based solution would add a lot of > bloat to the Makefile.in files. There is another solution, but it > requires a script that behaves like a layer between make and any system > command it executes

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Brendon Costa wrote: Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I'd suggest a little tweak: #! /bin/sh # DESCRIPTION=$1 COMMAND=$2 shift shift echo $DESCRIPTION < $COMMAND $* > /dev/null --- > output=`$COMMAND ${1+"$@"}` RESULT=$? if test $RESULT -ne 0; then >exec 1>&2 echo "Command fail

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > I'm afraid that I misinterpreted what the original poster wanted to be > a way of tidying output on a single development system, and not for all > variations of platforms where the build process would be run. The filter > would be a quick way of scra

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

I wrote: > > It might be a nice feature to add this to the autotools, but is it > > really necessary? Why not follow the unix philosophy and write your > > own filter (using sed, python, perl, whatever) that reduces the > > verbose lines you don't want into something more managable? [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Hello all, On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:13:01AM +0200, Duncan Gibson wrote: > > C++ ./out/netbsd/debug/src/libs/System/unix/UnixUtils.o > > C++ ./out/netbsd/debug/src/libs/System/unix/Utils.o > > Archive ./out/netbsd/debug/src/libs/libADS_System.a > > Ranlib ./out/netbsd/debug/src/libs/libADS_System

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > When compiling a project using: autoconf/automake/libtool, there is just > too much data being output to the screen when i run the make command. In > the jam system i am porting over if I was to issue the jam command, it > would print messages like:

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well i had a small look at the proposal i made last night, and it seems that it is not possible to achieve what i was saying entirely from autoconf by setting the command variables to be prefixed with the script command. Reasons include: 1) It

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > [ I assume you want Cc:s to both addresses? ] Yep. Thanks. By the way. Thanks for the reply. I couldn't believe it was so fast :-) > All patches I've seen add quite a bit of bloat to Makefile.in's, for > dubious value (reme

Re: Reducing verbosity of automake

[ I assume you want Cc:s to both addresses? ] Hi Brendon, * Brendon Costa wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:20:15PM CEST: > > When compiling a project using: autoconf/automake/libtool, there is just > too much data being output to the screen when i run the make command. make -s or even mak

Reducing verbosity of automake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, I have just recently started using automake and have been attempting to port over a system that uses jam to now use automake. While doing this i have come across a feature i seem unable to find within automake. I have searched the mail

Re: libtool verbosity

On Thu, 20 May 2004, Albert Chin wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:24:49AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Mon, 17 May 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > I was expecting this sort of answer, but was hoping that then I would > > > also get a pointer to how else to possibly achieve the same t

Re: libtool verbosity

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:24:49AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > I was expecting this sort of answer, but was hoping that then I would > > also get a pointer to how else to possibly achieve the same thing. > > For the package I support, I added a co

Re: libtool verbosity

On Mon, 17 May 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > I was expecting this sort of answer, but was hoping that then I would > also get a pointer to how else to possibly achieve the same thing. For the package I support, I added a configure option to enable verbose libtool output. Libtool is executed in sile

Re: libtool verbosity

t it make sense to have automake generate the LIBTOOL variable by > default so that libtool's verbosity matches that of make, i.e. by > something like > > LIBTOOL = @LIBTOOL@ $(if $(findstring s,$(filter-out > --%,$(MAKEFLAGS))),--silent) This looks like GNU make syntax to me. A

Re: libtool verbosity

On Mon, 17 May 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > Wouldn't it make sense to have automake generate the LIBTOOL variable by > default so that libtool's verbosity matches that of make, i.e. by > something like > > LIBTOOL = @LIBTOOL@ $(if $(findstring s,$(filter-out > --%,$(

libtool verbosity

Wouldn't it make sense to have automake generate the LIBTOOL variable by default so that libtool's verbosity matches that of make, i.e. by something like LIBTOOL = @LIBTOOL@ $(if $(findstring s,$(filter-out --%,$(MAKEFLAGS))),--silent) rather than the plain LIBTOOL = @LIBTOOL@ Thanks, Jan

Re: Reducing output verbosity

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > Jay> Do all those defines really need to be done on the command line? >See the Autoconf documentation for AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, or >the Automake documentation for `no-define'. Ah, thanks. AC_CONFIG_HEADERS cleared that up. :) > Jay> And is it real

Re: Reducing output verbosity

>>> "Jay" == Jay Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Jay> Do all those defines really need to be done on the command line? See the Autoconf documentation for AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, or the Automake documentation for `no-define'. Jay> And is it really necessary to print the if/else/fi block

Reducing output verbosity

Hi Is there any way to reduce the verbosity of make when used with Makefiles generated by Automake? The output just seems to get bigger and bigger with every Automake version increase, and it's quite messy when I'm not debugging. For example: if gcc -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"utopia\&quo