[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:54:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
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
> > will cause normal verbose output.
>
> The problem with the too verbose build output in lilypond is not
> related at all to the *make* output, IMHO. --enable-silent-rules
> only hides crucial information.
Absolutely! I think we really need to distinguish between ((make
output)) and ((the output that you get after you type make)); so
far we've been using those concepts interchangably.
> Heck, at OpenBSD we even spent time to force
> --disable-silent-rules on all software packages by default,
> because it just sucks if a build fails and you don't see the
> exact command line parameters passed to the compiler or the
> linker.
True -- although sometimes configuration is done via environment
variables, which may or may not be displayed on the exact command
line. (i.e. if something happens inside a subshell)
I'd like to have a general policy that we don't use environment
vars (at least, not within the build system) -- if you cut&paste
the exact command-line that you see in the make output, you should
get exactly the same behaviour (assuming that there's no
difference in files on the computer).
Cheers,
- Graham