[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:16:18 +0100
* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:19PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-08/msg00024.html>
> I don't understand why this is such a controversial issue.
- you must not have had to deal with Makefile.in files several megabytes
- maybe you haven't had to deal much with bad user bug reports that
provide far too little information to be valuable.
I don't know how many times I've been wanting to stand in front of bug
reporters and literally slap them with
until it comes out of their nose, after the second mail of mine only
asking for more details.
But then again, most if not all developers I know have an editor that
does near-perfect postprocessing of compiler warning/error messages.
Heck, where missing, I've even sent patches to the Vim maintainer.
(Yes, some of this reasoning is about this controversy in general, not
applicable in the above case; but it's not me you should convince about
> Just have
> automake prefix all commands in rules that are not already prefixed with @
> or - with $(PREFIX) (or some other variable.) Have default for PREFIX be
> empty so the current behavior is unchanged. If someone wants to change
> the output, they can redefine it with something like PREFIX="@echo
> 'building $@ ...'; ". Minimal makefile 'bloat', no change to the default
> behavior, and the flexibility for the output to be whatever is desired.
I think the patch Tommy suggested was pretty similar to this
description, but it did not address the concerns raised.
- Re: verbosity, (continued)
- Re: verbosity, Christopher Sean Morrison, 2007/01/15