- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always be concerns about specific
tech
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:26:00PM +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
> > out/parser.cc:2392: warning: conversion to 'short int' from 'int' may
> > alter its value
[...]
> [...] That "out/parser" is a perfect example - it *may*
> be innocuous, or it *may* be a serious problem. It really ought to be
> checked
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:34:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >I'm afraid I'm with Reinhold. As a *programmer*, I consider it very bad
> >practice to ignore warnings. For the system to hide them from me, well !!!
>
>
> They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
Am Tuesday, 9. August 2011, 17:34:57 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
> point of how you would see them in 37,000 lines of console output.
Of these 37071 lines, exactly 34111 are only from the font generation in mf/.
When coding, th
On 8/9/11 2:04 PM, "Wols Lists" wrote:
> On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>>
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
>> Th
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>
>> > So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
>> > lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
> There are many more warnings (> 180) if you're comp
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
> lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
There are many more warnings (> 180) if you're compiling a 64-bit
binary. They could be silenced via
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:21:26PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> > at them. There are nine warnings from the code compiler:
>
> And that number is really amazing and absolutely proves my point: Coders PAY
> attention to warnings an
Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
> and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
>
> The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings during the build
> process. If I grep the output of mak
On 8/9/11 9:34 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Wols Lists"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
>
>
>> On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
&
- Original Message -
From: "Wols Lists"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
[snip very well argued case
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
>
>
> [snip very well argued case]
>
> Reinhold,
>
> I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I
> do, and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
>
> The truth is, no
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
[snip very well argued case]
Reinhold,
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings during the build
pr
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:48:47PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > ... if we are still this unclear about precisely what the policy
> > states,
>
> No, the policy is clear in that regard. It's just that this is a decision I
> sim
Am Sonntag, 7. August 2011, 11:11:13 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> There's no intention of stopping make showing errors. There is an issue
> with warnings - make doc produces so many that the output is pretty much
> unreadable, and they've been ignored for a long time - so having warnings
> turned off by
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
> - will will ***NOT*** display any errors from g++. (second point)
> - exception: we ***MIGHT*** display some portion(s) of the
> relevant log file(s). The policy uses the word "might" here,
> not "must". There is a huge dif
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Keith OHara"
>
> To: ; "Phil Holmes"
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
>
> >Make
- Original Message -
From: "Keith OHara"
To: ; "Phil Holmes"
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes
wrote:
From: "Keith OHara"
I agree,
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes wrote:
From: "Keith OHara"
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been
taking the proposal too literally.
I know no reason why it shouldn't. Have you tried putting code that emits
errors or warnings into /lily and r
- Original Message -
From: "Keith OHara"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Reinhold Kainhofer kainhofer.com> writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a
compile
run.
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
Building the program (as opposed to documentation) is now *very* n
- Original Message -
From: "Keith OHara"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved t
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:07:05PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
> Reinhold Kainhofer kainhofer.com> writes:
>
> > We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
> > run.
>
> I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
> the proposal too l
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:18:36PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> > My only comment is that it's generally the case that output is directed to
> > logfiles using the redirect operator > . If we do this, it's hard to make
> > it also a
Reinhold Kainhofer kainhofer.com> writes:
> We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
> run.
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
the proposal too literally.
> * There will be no additional “progress messages” during t
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
> Building the program (as opposed to documentation) is now *very* nice, with
>
> make -s bin
>
> where -s is short for --silent to tell make not to print the commands she
> runs. We see errors or warnings from the changed files and nothi
Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
> ** Proposal details
>
> When you run make or make doc,
>
> * All output will be saved to various log files, with the
> exception of output directly from make(1).
> * By default, no other output will be displayed on the
> console,
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Graham Percival"
> > The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
> > V=x option. Presumably this is done by increasing x? If we support
> > this option, we should still write log f
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
The user may optionally request additional output to be
printed; this is controlled with the VERBOSE=x flag. In such
cases, all o
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always be concerns about specific
technical details... but I think we've got an ok set of guidelines
for future build system work, and it's time to start producing
patches.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:17:23PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
>
> >To see the warnings, you'll then have to wade through thousands of
> >log files...
>
> make doc already produces hundreds of warnings. It might be
> thousands, I've not cou
: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
>
> To see the warnings, you'll then have to wade through thousands of
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
Am Sunday, 31. July 2011, 01:34:16 schrieb Graham Percival:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc,
* All o
>> When you run make or make doc,
>>
>> * All output will be saved to various log files, with the
>> exception of output directly from make(1).
>> * By default, no other output will be displayed on the
>> console, with one exception: if a build fails, we might
>> display
Am Sunday, 31. July 2011, 01:34:16 schrieb Graham Percival:
> ** Proposal details
>
> When you run make or make doc,
>
> * All output will be saved to various log files, with the
> exception of output directly from make(1).
> * By default, no other output will be displayed on the
>
LGTM.
2011/7/31 Graham Percival :
> We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
> his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
> there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
> but I'm really hoping that he can start work; it's been a month
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:34 AM
Are there any problems with those guidelines?
Not from me. Let's give them a try.
Trevor
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3798 - Release Date: 07/30/11
On 7/30/11 5:34 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
> his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
> there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
> but I'm really hoping that he can start work; it'
We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
but I'm really hoping that he can start work; it's been a month!
Are there any problems with those guidel
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:36:38PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 29 July 2011 17:20, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
> > Valentin's note name changes from Dec 2010 or so;
>
> They come from parsing string-tunings-init.ly.
> > they
Am Samstag, 30. Juli 2011, 00:42:58 schrieb Reinhold Kainhofer:
> Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:20:25 schrieben Sie:
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:30:24PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > > [/home/reinhold/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/string-tunings
> > > -
> > >
> > > init.ly
>
Sorry, this reply went only to Graham by accident. Here it is for lilypond-
devel:
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Betreff: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Datum: Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 23:07:11
Von: Reinhold Kainhofer
An: Graham Percival
Am Freitag, 29
On 29 July 2011 17:20, Graham Percival wrote:
> Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
> Valentin's note name changes from Dec 2010 or so;
They come from parsing string-tunings-init.ly.
> they were
> debugging messages which were supposed to be removed, but weren't
> c
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:38:53PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
>
> >Yes, that would be *extremely* helpful (not only for the lilypond
> >documentation, but also to other lilypond-book users). The only
> >question is:
> >who will implement it?
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To: "Werner LEMBERG" ;
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:56:36 schrieben Sie:
> However, in the docs build, we ar
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:56:36 schrieben Sie:
> > However, in the docs build, we are not interested in how lilypond
> > works internally, but rather where a doc build fails due to bad
> > input in a .ly or .tely file.
>
> I suggest a different route: Normally, after an error message has been
> However, I have failed and still fail to see where the lilypond
> internals printed with --verbose can be helpful in any way during
> the docs build. Those verbose debug messages are useful for
> debugging a lilypond bug.
Yep.
> However, in the docs build, we are not interested in how lilypond
rror, ly:warning,
ly:progress, etc.). The only thing that is missing is a command-line option to
let the user choose which of those (s)he wants to see.
Such a patch is pretty straightforward and a matter of hours.
Of course, that no longer belongs here in the GOP-PROP 5 (build system
output), but
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:30:24PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> [/home/reinhold/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/string-tunings-
> init.ly
> Using `nederlands' note names...
> []
...
> []
Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
Valentin's note name changes fr
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 12:55:09 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
> Curr
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 12:55:09 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> - Original Message -
> > Currently, the doc build is calling lilypond in verbose mode, creating
> > thousands of unnecessary lines like
>
> Reinhold - I've been looking at the build system in some depth and am very
> well aware of
- Original Message -
From: "Francisco Vila"
To: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
2011/7/29 Reinhold Kainhofer :
> The other thing is that all commands called by make are e
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2011, 08:25:25 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
Graham Percival writes:
> Y
2011/7/29 Reinhold Kainhofer :
> The other thing is that all commands called by make are echoed on the console,
> always including several lines of include pathes. While this might sound
> useful, in fact it isn't because the exact command does not help you. make
> seems to set some env variables,
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2011, 08:25:25 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > You mean, like
> >
> > 23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
> >
> > ?
>
> Yes (I would have called the option --log).
>
> > I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
> > lilypond-b
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:25:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > You mean, like
> > 23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
> > ?
>
> Yes (I would have called the option --log).
IMO a long descriptive name is better than a short name that's
open to interpreta
Graham Percival writes:
> You mean, like
> 23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
> ?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
> I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
> lilypond-book will certainly be valuable!
Assuming that --redirect-lilypond-output is used during bu
Graham Percival writes:
> You mean, like
> 23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
> ?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
> I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
> lilypond-book will certainly be valuable!
Assuming that --redirect-lilypond-output is used during bu
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:33:04AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
> > Here's an updated proposal.
>
> So what if we add a --log option to lilypond-book (and probably
> to lilypond), that [always in ver
Graham Percival writes:
> I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
> Here's an updated proposal.
Ah, great.
So what if we add a --log option to lilypond-book (and probably
to lilypond), that [always in verbose mode?] writes individual
.log files alongside the output. Would
I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
Here's an updated proposal.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
** Proposal summary
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from make(1)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
My apologies; my old eyes noticed the "bin-clean" target, but
skipped over the "bin" in the bottom list.
Cheers
,- Graham
___
l
Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:38 PM
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
James (or another docs guru) - any chance of adding this to the CG
(probably in 4.5.1 Using make)
The command "make bin" will check to see whether any changes have
been made in the
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; "Ian Hulin"
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Patch
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Patch attached. Not convinced it's worth a Rietveld for essentially
> one line? Works on my system.
Thanks, pushed as soon as I'm at a real internet connection[1].
Could you add it to
make help
and the CG?
[1] BC Ferries gives fre
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; "Ian Hulin"
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
---
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Ian Hulin"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
>
> >1+ for Graham's proposal, provi
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Hulin"
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trev
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
>
>
>> 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
>>>
>>> If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
>>> as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
>>> So you nee
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Holmes"
To: "Graham Percival" ; "Trevor Daniels"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival&qu
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wro
2011/7/23 Trevor Daniels :
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
>
>> 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
>>>
>>> If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
>>> as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
>>> So you need to see the relevant messages o
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> If you have changed only one or two C++ routines
> the compile and link part of make take only a few seconds.
> There's no point in letting it go on to check all the doc files.
ok, let's publicize the "build on bin/lilypond" targ
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you need to see the relevant messages on the console
to determine this.
I'm not su
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
> In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely what
> the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
>
> But I have one comment. By far the commonest use of make
> by developers is to compile the most recent change to C++
> source during the
2011/7/21 Graham Percival :
> Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
> certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
In my case it is, i guess :)
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gn
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:49:01AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
>
> >Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
> >certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
>
> In my case it's because I have dif
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:07:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I proposed to adopt the linux/git/automake convention of using silent
> rules so that you get something like
>
> make
> CC lily/foo.c
> ..
> LB Documentation/web.texi
> LB Documentation/notation.texi
>
> or what you cu
Trevor Daniels writes:
>> Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
>> certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
>
> In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely
> what the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
+1
I pr
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding
precisely what the effect of this change will be o
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
[1] true story from a friend's lifeguard training. If somebody if
choking but declines any help, the lifeguard (in Canada, at least)
is legally obliged to watch the pers
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
>>I think there should be an option to turn it all back on if you want
>>- a sort of inverse of QUIET_BUILD. We should also get rid of the
>>QUIET_BUILD variable completely.
>
>Agreed. Maybe using the V=1 thing that Jan was talking about?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 05:20:02PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>
> >On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >I'm not certain if it's possible to cause make(1) to automatically
> >put its output into a logfile in addition t
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (update)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "G
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
> > * All output will be saved to various log files. (including
> > output from make(1))
> > * We will still display the output of make(1) on the console.
>
> I read these as
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:09 PM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (update)
Update on this; I'm not ready to call it a "probable decision"
yet.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
(propos
2011/7/14 Graham Percival :
> ** Proposal summary
>
> When you run make or make doc,
>
> * All output will be saved to various log files. (including
> output from make(1))
> * We will still display the output of make(1) on the console.
> * No other output will be displayed on the cons
Update on this; I'm not ready to call it a "probable decision"
yet.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
(proposal written by Phil Holmes, modified by Graham)
** Proposal summary
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files. (including
output f
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 01:10:05PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> But we don't solve the problem of the log output. I mean, how many people
> really **want** the full output from the build system?
What about a *default* output similar to what you now get with
QUIET_BUILD=1? That is currently
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhold Kainhofer"
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
Am Sonntag, 10. Juli 2011, 12:50:19 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
> On Thu, Jul
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:53:08AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >Little bit difficult as it seems, so here's a simple version (without
> >the combined log). You can invoke it like this:
> >
> >lilylog.sh o.log e.log ls -l . dontexist
> >
> >which is the `verbose' mode (i.e. you still see stdout and
Phil Holmes writes:
> My concern with this is that we may get a lot of people surprised and
> confused by this
Probably not. Linux and Git have been doing this for years and
autoconf/automake is also adopting this convention. Everyone
building packages knows to use --disable-silent-rules or jus
Am Sonntag, 10. Juli 2011, 12:50:19 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Graham Percival"
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> > I think we should use logfiles by default -- actually, we should
> > use logfiles exclusively -- and then displ
- Original Message -
From: "Matthias Kilian"
To: "Graham Percival" ;
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:59:37PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to either collect
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
* We do not change the output of make, make doc, or any of the
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> * We do not change the output of make, make doc, or any of the
> other make commands - this is the default.
> * We use the variable QUIET_BUILD to signal to the make system
> that we want the minimum of progress
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:10:40AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:24:37AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > * Passing --enable-silent-rules to configure will cause build rules to
> > be less verbose; the option --disable-silent-rules is the default and
> >
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:24:37AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Almost right. However, try not to invent something new. Please just
> use the autoconf/automake behaviour, which follows mostly the convention
> that Linux and Git git have set.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/s/hello/manual/automake
Graham Percival writes:
> Let’s decide what we want to see when we do:
>
> make
> make doc
+1
> A variable, QUIET_BUILD, can be set and this will reduce the
> clutter but not eliminate it.
-0.5
Almost right. However, try not to invent something new. Please just
use the autoconf/au
2011/7/7 Graham Percival :
>
> A variable, QUIET_BUILD, can be set and this will reduce the
> clutter but not eliminate it. (see
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/useful-make-variables
> ) This variable currently does things like adding a -q flag to the
> TEXI2PDF call ("qui
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
