Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real warnings and problems.
Jocke
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
What for?
When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
all one should see is real warning
Ralf Corsepius wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
>
> On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
> >
> > I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
> What for?
I just said that below.
>
> > When a de
On 01/29/2010 09:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
W
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
is useful, automake already supports silent compilation. I know that
I have missed errors or warnings beause having had to much output to
read, Joakim, would you like to work on a patch for this? I think it
would be immensly use
On 01/29/2010 11:17 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
is useful,
Where? So far, I have only experienced the contrary.
automake already supports silent compilation.
Yes, some automake maintainers share your opinion. I believe thes
Ralf Corsepius wrote on 2010/01/29 10:05:04:
>
> On 01/29/2010 09:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote on 2010/01/29 09:21:46:
> >
> >> On 01/29/2010 09:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
> >>>
> >>> I wou
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote on 2010/01/29 11:17:24:
>
> And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose output
> is useful, automake already supports silent compilation. I know that
Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
learn suppress the install mgs as we
Daniel Pocock wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Daniel,
* Daniel Pocock wrote on Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:21:24PM CET:
We have been working on getting the Ganglia tarball to work out of
the box for AIX
When Michael does `make install', the *.so files for our modules
are not inst
> And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose
> output is useful, automake already supports silent compilation.
> I know that
Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
learn suppress the install mgs as well as other libtool msgs such
as
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote on 2010/01/29 11:59:51:
>
>> And there are many examples of the opposite where less verbose
>> output is useful, automake already supports silent compilation.
>> I know that
>
>Yes, but automake --silent is a different tool, perhaps it should
>learn sup
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Silent make rules are harmful:
> - Bogus defines []
> typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Could you please explain that?
Here, most either use make from vim/emacs and use $EDITOR as error
message parser or u
Hi,
here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using
"make tags", tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are
generated. In case of "own functions" this is great (you jump to the
implemenations when analysing code) but in other cases it is not and
someone may want
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines []
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Could you please explain that?
Example: Compling a package under linux
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
>> Silent make rules are harmful:
>> - Bogus defines []
>> typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
>
> Could you please explain that?
Exam
On 01/29/2010 03:42 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
>> Silent make rules are harmful:
>> - Bogus defines []
>> typically do not show up as compiler warnings o
On 22/01/10 13:17, Jim Meyering wrote:
[Cc'd autoconf for a suggestion below]
Pádraig Brady wrote:
+ @grep -Ei '^#define.*(yes|no|true|false)$$' lib/config.h&& \
+ { echo 'Please use 0 or 1 for macro values' 1>&2; exit 1; }
+
I like it.
However, it'd sure be nice to use so
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Example: Compling a package under linux
The system that you are refering to as `Linux' is really called GNU
and was started by the GNU projet in 1984, many people don't know the
GNU project and what it does. You can help us spread that knowledge
b
> I was refering to AM_SILENT_RULES, which supresses `make all'
> output; so this is not a very controversial topic, it is already
> in automake and used by several projects. Would you like to work
> on this feature? The maintainers can't accept a patch that
> doesn't exist after a
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
Wow. Pointless trying to add anything to discussion whether things are
good or evil.
But note this comment in depend2.am:
## Verbosity of FASTDEP rules
## --
## (1) Some peop
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> Could you please explain that?
>
> Example: Compling a package under linux
>
> configure --prefix=/usr
> ...
> gcc -DCONFDIR="/foo/bar" -DIRIX ...
>
> Using silent make rules you will no
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows?
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
SCNR :)
oki,
Steffen
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> I don't know where to start even and considering that silent builds
> seems to be a very controversial subject within the autotools
> maintainers , I think this needs to come from the maintainers themselves
> to have any chance to be accepted.
There are some people on
On 1/29/2010 10:17 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows?
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
SCNR :)
Okay - I can't help it! I bet the engineer's windows don
Hello Steffen,
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:10:16PM CET:
> here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using
> "make tags", tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are
> generated. In case of "own functions" this is great (you jump to the
> imp
Hello Pádraig,
* Pádraig Brady wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:47:37AM CET:
> I think $(CONFIG_HEADER) is auto exported but that doesn't seem
> to be documented. How about this patch to automake?
CONFIG_HEADER is not documented because it is obsolete since 1996,
quoting NEWS:
New in 0.29:
[.
Hello,
* Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:05:07AM CET:
>
> Is there a reason why the install target doesn't respect make -s?
>
> I would really like to see autotools and libtool respect make -s.
> When a developer asks for a silent build in order to catch problems
> all one shou
27 matches
Mail list logo
