[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: automake less verbose (iter 3.1)
From: |
William Pursell |
Subject: |
Re: automake less verbose (iter 3.1) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:19:38 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) |
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2008-12-15 08:32, William Pursell wrote:
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>>> third round here of the automake-tranquility patch from me.
>>> Updates from previous attempts:
>> I've been looking through the archive and haven't
>> noticed any followup on this. I don't know if it
>> counts for anything but I would certainly like to
>> see this incorporated.
>>
>> Jan, which commit was your patch made against?
>
> Possibly the 1.10.1 tarball plus ... ah forget it. Here's a redump,
> this time with parent specifier (not that git would use it, but
> it's helpful for exactly such cases where you just don't remember
> what your base is ;)
Thanks for this Jan, it is really nice functionality. I don't
know if this is a portability issue, but I think it would be nice
to change $< to $? in this section:
> + 'am__1verbose_CCLD_1 = @echo " CCLD " $@ "<-" $<;',
> + 'am__1verbose_CXX_1 = @echo " CXX " $@ "<-" $<;',
> + 'am__1verbose_CXXLD_1 = @echo " CXXLD " $@ "<-" $<;',
In the case with lots of dependencies, that might lead to excess
verbage, but that's what V=0 is for, right? Or maybe use $? in a
V=2 case. Also, for those who like customizability, it might
be nice to allow the maintainer to specify a character sequence
to use other than "<-" to separate the target from the prereqs.
(For example, the radically different "<--"). I sound like I'm
complaining already. I don't mean to, since I think this is
really nice.
I noticed that your patch modifies m4/Makefile.in. Is that
correct behavior? I'm still unclear on the merits of putting
Makefile.in in the repository at all, but I would think that
its content in the repository should be automatically
generated rather than patched.
--
William Pursell