[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502D8BFC.8030601@gentoo.org>
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.
