Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/9/11 9:34 AM, "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wols Lists" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> 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"
>>> <address@hidden>
>>> 

>>> 
>>> In practice, displaying warnings on the console is a waste.  It's really
>>> far, far better to put them in a file, where concerned individuals can
>>> grep the file, open it in an editor and view it, etc.  I would have got
>>> nowhere understanding the build system unless I routinely redirected the
>>> build output to file.
>> 
>> 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
> point of how you would see them in 37,000 lines of console output.

I think that what Reinhold and Wols are asking for is that *compiler*
warnings should be sent to the terminal under default behavior, not that all
37,000 lines of console output be sent to the terminal.

I hope we all agree that the result of make is currently too verbose for
effective use.

Phil wants to make it useful.  I hope we all agree that is a *good* thing.

I think the main disagreement is with the statement in GOP_prop_5 that "only
the results of make(1) will be echoed to the terminal."

I'd propose a different statement.  Something along the lines of

"Only the results of make(1) and the binary build section will be echoed to
the terminal.  The binary build section includes all of the gcc codebase, as
well as the automatically created python scripts."

I think I'd even be fine with defining the binary build section as anything
that is not the result of a call to lilypond or lilypond-book.

Thanks,

Carl