This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Improve AM_SILENT_RULES coverage
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:02:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve AM_SILENT_RULES coverage
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 10:23 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 06:00 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 11:15 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> >> Note, elfutils does not explicitly enable AM_SILENT_RULES. It's only
> >> available starting from automake 1.11
> > Note that we already require 1.11 or higher for parallel-tests.
> > I wouldn't mind if we also just added AM_SILENT_RULES([yes]) by default.
> I do prefer silent builds too. You'll probably want to force V=1 for
> automated builds like rpm though. I leave the default choice to you.
OK, I'll add AM_SILENT_RULES([yes]) as default unless someone objects.
(btw. the rpm builds currently use make -s, so using the silent rules
would actually give more output.)
> It's easy to answer "what defines" -- they're set in /usr/bin/automake
> handle_languages() based on $lang->ccer and $lang->lder, which are names
> declared in earlier register_language() calls.
> I have no idea if they're "officially" OK though. It's strange that
> these aren't documented at all. In practice it should be fine, I think,
> but if you want to be really careful we can define our own renamed variants.
Odd they aren't officially documented. But they look official enough. I
saw other projects also use them in front of LINK and COMPILE steps, so
we are at least in good company. So please do just use them as is.