Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:10:36 +0200 From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] makefile: add silent rules On 08/17/2012 01:03 AM, idunham@...abit.com wrote: >> make V=0 to enable them >> --- > Remind me what the _benefit_ is? An in between make -s and normal make. > I remember there were several advantages to standard full output, so the > verdict was that *if* they're added, they get disabled by default. It is disabled by default. > While this patch does respect that, I'd like to know whether there's a > better reason for the added ugliness than "Some folks don't like to see > what's happening"... It is faster, you see the warnings w/out useless clutter. You do not care about seeing what the clean target is doing most of the times and such. > Also, I note that you're also making a couple other changes: RM, LN, and > INSTALL... > Last time, Rich said he didn't see a reason to use $(RM), since rm is > POSIX. Same can be said of ln/$(LN). > install appears (per man 1p) to not be POSIX, but is fairly widespread. I > can see this helping with the occasional broken version of install. It is used for the quiet machinery > Patch 3/3 is the most valuable part of the series, I think. > I can see merging that, and patch 2/3 is trivial. Indeed, but since I did the work and since at least for few people is useful I tried to rebase it. >> -include config.mak > Umm.... Is this an accident? Uhm? " -include config.mak" is just that line, see the leading space. > Axe this part (see above) > See above. It is part of the quiet rule. lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.