Re: [PATCH]: libtool-1.9f: Added option "quiet" - only errors and warnings go through, now

[Juergen Leising]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 05:29:54PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

(...)

> Well, you could just use
>   make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> (portable make version:
>   LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent make -e -s
> or even
>   LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent; export LIBTOOLFLAGS; make -e -s
> ) which would not require the package author to change anything, or put
>   LIBTOOLFLAGS = --silent
> in the respective Makefile.am(s)
> or even
>   LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
>   AC_SUBST(LIBTOOLFLAGS)
> in configure.ac to have it in all Makefile's.
> 
> All of these possibilities are less intrusive than your patch, the first
> one even allows the user the choice instead of relying on the compiler.
> Maybe you can convince me why your patch would be better to use?

yes, you are right, I know them, but...

> OTOH, there is a different, and IMHO orthogonal component: even with
> --silent, libtool outputs a little bit of information (which I believe
> your patch works on as well).  The question is: Should we add another 
> option to be completely silent, or maybe just make --silent be
> completely silent?  What do you/the others think?

(...)

..., exactly, this is what my patch was meant to be about: 
Complete silence. It's really useful when you try and find
errors in third party software you are not too much familiar
with.

This has been a discussion among "make" developers and
users for a long time. And after having seen the default make
behaviour with kernel-2.6, I must say, the "complete silence"
version is the superior one.

But anyway, it's not that important. As I have seen in the
meantime, my patch still does not reach "complete" silence
(regarding install and uninstall). And you are absolutely right:
there are ways to enforce silence in any respect...

Bye, bye, 

Juergen

--