On Monday, June 20, 2011 16:30:15 Simon Glass wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > indeed. it shouldnt be that bad now that more stuff has converted to
> > FOO-$(CONFIG) syntax. it could probably even be done piece by piece
> > rather than the whole tree to make tr
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Simon Glass,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> >> So yes, patches are welcome, but these should go directly to the make
>> >> mailing lists / patch system, see
>> >> http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=make
>> >
>> > not to kick san
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 18:03, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > I think it is fundamentally wrong to implement such a feature (let's
> > call it "terse make output") in the Makefiles of many projects, using
> > a lot of trickery and magic. =A0If a specific ve
Dear Simon Glass,
In message
you wrote:
>
> >> So yes, patches are welcome, but these should go directly to the make
> >> mailing lists / patch system, see
> >> http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=make
> >
> > not to kick sand just for fun, but this is an example of you getting
> > final veto po
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 18:03, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> I think it is fundamentally wrong to implement such a feature (let's
>> call it "terse make output") in the Makefiles of many projects, using
>> a lot of trickery and magic. If a spec
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 18:03, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> I think it is fundamentally wrong to implement such a feature (let's
> call it "terse make output") in the Makefiles of many projects, using
> a lot of trickery and magic. If a specific verbosity of make output
> is needed, this should most na
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:49:36 +0200
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> 2) terse vs verbose.
>
> I like terse more, and yes, I concur with Wolfgang that as far as output
> verbosity is concerned, this should be done natively in make, not in
> makefiles -- but it might be easier said than done, because the
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201106181342.06716.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > >> Of course we can have that - if somebody submits patches for it.
> > >
> > > this sounds ambiguous ... i think you mean "no, this isnt going into
> > > u-boot, but people can submit patches to other project
Dear Rod Boyce,
In message <4dfcc7bc.7070...@teamboyce.co.uk> you wrote:
>
> here. I agree with what Amicalement has said so far. As an example
You mean Albert. "Amicalement" is French and means "best regards" ;-)
> A fragment from my common makefile system is this:
> # New improved verbose m
On Saturday, June 18, 2011 09:49:36 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 17/06/2011 02:09, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:03:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
> >>> where it prints out the full
On 18/06/11 14:49, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 17/06/2011 02:09, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
>> On Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:03:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> Simon Glass wrote:
Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
where it prints out the full pathname of each fil
Le 17/06/2011 02:09, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> On Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:03:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
>>> where it prints out the full pathname of each file it is building, and
>>> doesn't change in and
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 19:03:21 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Aside from the pros and cons of the terse output, getting rid of the
> recursive makefiles should speed up the u-boot build dramatically. In a
> typical build, it spends a huge amount of time going in and out of
> directories only to deter
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:03:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Simon Glass wrote:
> > Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
> > where it prints out the full pathname of each file it is building, and
> > doesn't change in and out of directories as it builds. Perhaps
> > inc
Wolfgang Denk writes:
> Dear Simon Glass,
>
> In message you wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
>> where it prints out the full pathname of each file it is building, and
>> doesn't change in and out of directories as it builds. Perhaps
>> including
Dear Simon Glass,
In message you wrote:
>
> Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
> where it prints out the full pathname of each file it is building, and
> doesn't change in and out of directories as it builds. Perhaps
> including the subdirectory Makefiles instead
Hi,
Is it possible for U-Boot to use a system similar to Linux from 2.6
where it prints out the full pathname of each file it is building, and
doesn't change in and out of directories as it builds. Perhaps
including the subdirectory Makefiles instead using make -C? I haven't
looked at how Linux do
17 matches
Mail list logo
