Re: silent installs

[Ralf Wildenhues]

[ moving to libtool@ from automake@; this is
  

  this particular message is about whether the relinking warning and the
  warning about the need to --finish should be changed to be notices
  only, which would cause them to not be displayed with `libtool --silent'
  which implies that an Automake --enable-silent-rules build would not
  show them at `make install' time.
]

> > If you additionally would like to not see output from libtool, pass
> >   LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> 
> I do so but still see those msgs. It just occurred to me
> that ltmain.sh could change those line from func_warning
> to func_verbose instead:

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.

So the question really is whether to make their life harder for
making your life easier.

I'd like to know what other libtool people think about this, so
feedback appreciated.

Thanks,
Ralf

> --- ltmain.sh (revision 57662)
> +++ ltmain.sh (working copy)
> @@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@
>   relink_command=`$ECHO "X$relink_command" | $Xsed -e 
> "s...@inst_prefix_dir@%%"`
> fi
> 
> -   func_warning "relinking \`$file'"
> +   func_verbose "relinking \`$file'"
> func_show_eval "$relink_command" \
>   'func_fatal_error "error: relink \`$file'\'' with the above command 
> before installing it"'
>   fi
> @@ -2269,7 +2269,7 @@
>  done
> 
>  test -n "$future_libdirs" && \
> -  func_warning "remember to run \`$progname --finish$future_libdirs'"
> +  func_verbose "remember to run \`$progname --finish$future_libdirs'"
> 
>  if test -n "$current_libdirs"; then
># Maybe just do a dry run.


___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Ralf Wildenhues  wrote on 2010/01/31 08:38:38:
>
> [ moving to libtool@ from automake@; this is
>   
> 
>   this particular message is about whether the relinking warning and the
>   warning about the need to --finish should be changed to be notices
>   only, which would cause them to not be displayed with `libtool --silent'
>   which implies that an Automake --enable-silent-rules build would not
>   show them at `make install' time.
> ]
>
> > > If you additionally would like to not see output from libtool, pass
> > >   LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> >
> > I do so but still see those msgs. It just occurred to me
> > that ltmain.sh could change those line from func_warning
> > to func_verbose instead:
>
> 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.

>
> So the question really is whether to make their life harder for
> making your life easier.

Not really, I think autotools(including libtool) should support
both the user trying to build some SW pkg he/she has downloaded and
the developer who is working to improve the said pkg in his daliy
work. I am in the latter group

>
> I'd like to know what other libtool people think about this, so
> feedback appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralf
>
> > --- ltmain.sh   (revision 57662)
> > +++ ltmain.sh   (working copy)
> > @@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@
> > relink_command=`$ECHO "X$relink_command" | $Xsed -e 
> > "s...@inst_prefix_dir@%%"`
> >   fi
> >
> > - func_warning "relinking \`$file'"
> > + func_verbose "relinking \`$file'"
> >   func_show_eval "$relink_command" \
> > 'func_fatal_error "error: relink \`$file'\'' with the above command
> before installing it"'
> > fi
> > @@ -2269,7 +2269,7 @@
> >  done
> >
> >  test -n "$future_libdirs" && \
> > -  func_warning "remember to run \`$progname --finish$future_libdirs'"
> > +  func_verbose "remember to run \`$progname --finish$future_libdirs'"
> >
> >  if test -n "$current_libdirs"; then
> ># Maybe just do a dry run.
>



___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Peter Johansson]

On 1/31/10 6:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

Ralf Wildenhues  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.


Thanks,
Peter


___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Peter Johansson  wrote on 2010/01/31 16:28:52:
>
> On 1/31/10 6:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ralf Wildenhues  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

Re: silent installs

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:


So the question really is whether to make their life harder for
making your life easier.

I'd like to know what other libtool people think about this, so
feedback appreciated.


I think that some people are hypersensitive to seeing build text and 
that changes to behavior should be well-reasoned and based on the 
typical user/developer rather than a hypersensitive one.  In the USA 
we call this using "community standards".


The install step is one of the most dangerous things that I do to my 
system and so I often do 'make -n install' and study what is going on 
before doing the actual 'make install'.  The thought of requesting a 
silent install has never crossed my mind before.


Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/


___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Bob Friesenhahn  wrote on 2010/01/31 18:23:30:
>
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > So the question really is whether to make their life harder for
> > making your life easier.
> >
> > I'd like to know what other libtool people think about this, so
> > feedback appreciated.
>
> I think that some people are hypersensitive to seeing build text and
> that changes to behavior should be well-reasoned and based on the
> typical user/developer rather than a hypersensitive one.  In the USA
> we call this using "community standards".
>
> The install step is one of the most dangerous things that I do to my
> system and so I often do 'make -n install' and study what is going on
> before doing the actual 'make install'.  The thought of requesting a
> silent install has never crossed my mind before.

Sort of makes sense when you install to your host but when
install into a DESTDIR as a normal user to later transfer the whole
"image" to another system (embedded in my case) it isn't
such a big deal.



___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:


Sort of makes sense when you install to your host but when
install into a DESTDIR as a normal user to later transfer the whole
"image" to another system (embedded in my case) it isn't
such a big deal.


True.  Any task likely to be performed as 'root' becomes a big deal. 
To be honest, it would be nice if 'make install' displayed a dialog 
which specifies the install locations of all the files to be installed 
and requests that I confirm it.  Even then, there is the assumption 
that the install scripting does not have a bug.  We are putting huge 
trust in 'make install'.


Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/


___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: silent installs

[Russ Allbery]

Ralf Wildenhues  writes:

> 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.

Perhaps libtool could add some more logic around when that text is
displayed?  It's always been noise for me; I've never needed to run
--finish despite the message, presumably because of the platform on which
I'm running libtool.  If libtool could suppress that message unless the
platform actually needs to do something at --finish, that would probably
solve the problem.  That would also solve the problem of people like me
who are so used to that message and so used to it being useless that we've
mentally filtered it out and wouldn't see it even if we needed to.

On Linux, all that --finish appears to do is update the library symlinks.
I don't understand why libtool thinks that needs to be done, given that it
installs the library symlinks itself properly in the first place.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) 


___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool