- 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
