Peter Johansson <troj...@gmail.com> wrote on 2010/01/31 16:28:52: > > On 1/31/10 6:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Ralf Wildenhues<ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote on 2010/01/31 08:38:38: > > > >> > >> > >> My problem with that change is that, the relinking and finish > >> really are information that some users need to know about. > >> If you don't --finish, then your libraries won't be found by > >> the runtime linker. If relinking happens as another user than > >> the one who ran `make all', that is a problem to know about, too, > >> because it can lead to problems with file ownership and directory > >> write permission. > >> > > But they are not errors so they should not be directed to stderr no matter > > what. > > Then one can argue if --silent should suppress these msgs too or not. > > > > > > > Moving these messages to stdout would have the positive side effect that > `make distcheck > /dev/null' would become silent. > > That would be nice but is not worth it, if it means users miss the > --finsih warning and end up sending bug reports to me about runtime errors.
There has to be some middle ground here. If the user does > /dev/null then he in trouble anyway. Why would he do that in the first place? And what if he does > /dev/null 2>&1 too? If the user really feels that he needs to use > /dev/null, then perhaps there is something else that is wrong such as too much output in the first place? Jocke _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
