On Wednesday 2009-03-11 21:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 10:46:40AM CET:
The current patch still has a couple of warts in that --silent-rules
should turn off portability-recursive warnings independently of the
command line argument order. This is
On Wednesday 2009-03-11 22:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:34:20PM CET:
On Wednesday 2009-03-11 21:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Do we want to allow a command line knob (--silent-rules) to turn
off `silent' mode, or do we force developers to either
On Monday 2009-03-09 15:57, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
For this patch, I'm unsure if we should even add it at all.
FWIW: I am opposed to it.
All this silencing stuff does is to add further potential sources of errors.
Which ones, please?
Those yet to be discovered.
Oh what great
On Monday 2009-03-09 16:10, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
For this patch, I'm unsure if we should even add it at all.
FWIW: I am opposed to it.
All this silencing stuff does is to add further potential sources of
errors.
Which ones, please?
Those yet to be discovered.
Oh what
On Monday 2009-03-09 16:54, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
which has some similar silent mode too (by default even!)...
Correct. that's one of cmake's sillynesses. It hides away the silent bugs a
package suffers from.
Potential bugs in the command line invoking $CC that automake generates
just go
On Sunday 2009-03-08 10:01, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Another minor issue I don't quite like yet: before this change,
the code was quite carefully laid out to be performant in the
generic fastdep case: GNU make can avoid spawning a shell for
a command, when the command line to be executed can
the AM_BACKSLASH workaround; another global
variable that should be unneeded. :-/
Good thing about this approach is that in the packages I tested,
it increased Makefile.in size by 1% up to 7% only. Feedback welcome.
2008-12-22 Jan Engelhardt jeng...@medozas.de
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh
