Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:34:50PM CEST: >> Switching to silent-rules feels like progress, so I want it to be >> enabled by default, at least for packages I maintain. Of course, >> that's my judgment, and if enough people say that my enabling >> silent

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:34:50PM CEST: > > Switching to silent-rules feels like progress, so I want it to be > enabled by default, at least for packages I maintain. Of course, > that's my judgment, and if enough people say that my enabling > silent-rules broke their XYZ, I

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53:40AM CEST: >> What if a package maintainer wants to enable >> automake's silent-rules option by default? > > Then you should argue for this; see the arguments against it here: ... Hi Ralf, I think backwards compatibility

Re: debugging feature for recursive rules

Hi Karl, * Karl Berry wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:02:15AM CEST: > Very good. Minor comments: Thanks for the review. I fixed all the comments, and also added a cross reference to the Autoconf manual about quirks with `make SHELL=...', and committed the patch like this. Cheers, Ralf ma

Re: maintainer mode parallel make issue

Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:15:18AM CEST: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 4/18/2009 4:27 PM: > > Tangential to this issue, I think XFile::lock should warn resp. fail > > also when parallel non-GNU make is used and exposes a locking issue. > > I agree; and the patch lo

Re: choosing the default for silent-rules

Hi Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53:40AM CEST: > What if a package maintainer wants to enable > automake's silent-rules option by default? Then you should argue for this; see the arguments against it here: <

choosing the default for silent-rules

What if a package maintainer wants to enable automake's silent-rules option by default? Currently, even when I use AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([silent-rules]) it's disabled, and to get the behavior I want, I have to run ./configure --enable-silent-rules or "make V=0". Is there a recommended way to make the "

Re: comment after trailing backslash inconsistent warning

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 01:24:27AM CEST: > * Karl Berry wrote on Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:10:31AM CEST: > > The line numbers are probably off now since I made more > > changes since sending the message, but the essential point is that it > > complains about \ > > # > > at the

Automake git branch "next" merged into "master"

The git "next" branch of Automake, from which test release 1.10b came, has now been merged into the "master" branch. That means, all the work that happened on these branches: je-silent ad-parallel-tests mh-vala-support next is now present in the master branch. This has been done because