This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Improve AM_SILENT_RULES coverage
- From: Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:00:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve AM_SILENT_RULES coverage
On 10/06/2015 03:02 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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.