[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final) |
Date: |
Sun, 7 Aug 2011 17:59:31 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith OHara"
> <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>; "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
>
> >Make does show warnings on the terminal right now.
> > make -s bin
> >lets me find them, which makes me very happy.
> >
> >Only after the proposal is fully implemented, will a successful
> >build stop showing me the warnings.
Yes, that is true. You may request additional warnings with the
make VERBOSE=1
command.
> There's no intention of stopping make showing errors.
Actually, a literal reading of the policy -- which is how I always
try to read policies -- states that there *is* an intention of not
showing gcc errors.
It is possible that we are talking about different things, though.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
- we will still display errors from the make(1) program. (first
point under "proposal details")
- will will ***NOT*** display any errors from g++. (second point)
- exception: we ***MIGHT*** display some portion(s) of the
relevant log file(s). The policy uses the word "might" here,
not "must". There is a huge difference between those two words.
Please always remember that there is a difference between the
make(1) program, and other programs which are called by make(1).
... if we are still this unclear about precisely what the policy
states, then I think I'd better make a new draft of
GOP-PROP 5: build system output, send it here, and wait a few days
for more questions. In particular, I will clarify the distinction
between make(1) and other programs.
Are other parts of the document unclear? I'll ask again when I
post the new draft, but if anybody knows of a different area of
confusion, it would be great if I could clarify that in the same
draft.
Sorry,
- Graham
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), (continued)
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Keith OHara, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Keith OHara, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Graham Percival, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Keith OHara, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/07
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final),
Graham Percival <=
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Graham Percival, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Wols Lists, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Carl Sorensen, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Matthias Kilian, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Matthias Kilian, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/09