Re: tests: always update generated tests silently

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Saturday 15 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:26:24PM CET:
> > As I wrote (or copied? I can't remember) in my pending documentation
> > patch on silent rules support:
> > 
> >  @cindex default verbosity for silent-rules
> >  Note that silent rules are @emph{disabled} by default; the user must
> >  enable them explicitly at either @command{configure} run time or at
> >  @command{make} run time.  We think that this is a good policy, since
> >  it provides the casual user with enough information to prepare a good
> >  bug report in case anything breaks.
> 
> Ah yes.  I haven't forgotten that patch.  I can try to finish my review
> of it this weekend, but it will be more of a rewrite than a review, I'm
> afraid.
> 
> > Also, I like the automake silent-rules support because I can decide at
> > at any step what the verbosity is to be.  Just silencing some rules
> > unconditionally would IMHO be a step backward from the current
> > behaviour.
> 
> Sure, in general I very much agree with you.  It's just that in this
> particular case, I think the printed commands add a lot to noise, but
> add very little in way of information, unlike with compile commands,
> where often the particular command is interesting.  With the generated
> test rules, that is not the case: the rules are completely static, no
> variation among systems, compilers, shells, anything.
> 
> And of course I don't aim to change anything more general about silent
> rules.
>
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you did!  It was absolutely clear to me you
didn't, really.

> > > Alternatively, we could prefix them with
> > >         @$(AM_V_GEN)
> > >         @$(AM_V_at)
> > >         ...
> > > 
> > > then in silent-rules mode the GEN line would still be output.
> > >
> > Yes please (if you really must silence the rules unconditionally,
> > of course).
> >
> > > Or should we go the next step and use AM_SILENT_RULES([yes])?
> > >
> > Again from my pending documentation patch:
> > 
> >  Still, notwithstanding the rationales above, a developer who wants to
> >  make silent rules enabled by default in his own package can do so by
> >  adding a @samp{yes} argument to the @code{AM_SILENT_RULES} call in
> >  @file{configure.ac}.  We advise against this approach, though.
> > 
> > This advice should be changed if the automake's own build system starts
> > using AM_SILENT_RULES([yes]).
> 
> Why do you think that?  The Automake package is fairly special in that
> its own build rules are almost completely trivial, unlike most packages
> which actually use a compiler of some sort.
>
Agreed.  But than this explanation should be reported as a footnote in
the manual, otherwise some users might be unfavorably impressed by an
apparent failure on our part to follow our own advices ...

> > But I think it's a good advice as is ...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > Anyway, going with AM_SILENT_RULES([yes]), while not good per se, would
> > probably be better than starting to silencing rules unconditionally.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Elsewhere, you write:
> > A possible mediation would be to enable silent by default only in
> > builds done from a cloned git repository.  I've done something
> > similar already (caveat: for toy projects only).  WDYT?
> 
> No, I don't really see why that should have much to do with it.
>
Well, since "make dist" creates and distributes all the generated tests,
the only situation in which the output from their build rules could
clutter up a build log is when the build is performed from a git clone
or checkout.  Does this makes sense?

> Thanks,
> Ralf
> 

Regards,
   Stefano