Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough >>>> that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils. >>> Well, if you think such a step to be helpful, I disagree. >> >> Then you can build with "make V=1". >> >>>> Since I bootstrap using automake from its "next" branch, it's >>>> enabled for me. And that translates to enhanced Makefile.in >>>> files in the tarballs I generate. The net result is that when >>>> you run "make" (using distributed Makefile.in files), you'll >>>> see something like this: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> CC id.o >>> Now your users won't see the "silent bugs" your package comes with. >>> >>> I am seriously asking: Why are you doing this? >> >> I find it far easier to spot compiler warnings this way. >> That's essential, when not using -Werror. > > well (recalling previous discussion), the reason that Ralf's complaining > is that while it makes working on your program simpler it makes > finding bugs in _automake_ harder.
If you think seeing those long gcc command lines in a *coreutils* build will help you track down bugs in automake, you're welcome to use "make V=1". It's just no longer the default. Besides, considering that automake is so robust and stable these days, why should I sacrifice coreutils development efficiency for the dubious promise of increased ease of spotting automake bugs? Even if by "bugs in automake", you mean "bugs in coreutils' Makefile.am files", it's not a worthwhile trade-off.
