Re: Fw: [PATCH] Enable automake silent rules

[C Howland <cc1964t@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 14:51, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 07 Dec 2021 11:10, C Howland wrote:
> >      Should this really be made the new default?
>
> yes
>
> >  I personally don't want it as a default because I want to see
> > command line arguments.  Easy for me to get different, but only knowing
> > how.  That leads to the next question.
>
> then use the standard `make V=1` or `./configure --disable-silent-rules`
>
> >      Given that silent were made default, it is a big change in terms of
> > what people see.  How would you know to change it?  (New feature, most
> > people are far from experts in automake.)  Therefore, the directions most
> > definitely would need something added that explains it.  (Without knowing
> > about it, I can see it taking someone a long time to chase down why they
> > suddenly lost the make output.)  Something along the lines of Jon's
> > explanation in the patch email needs to end up in README and probably
> also
> > printed by a configure help.
>
> you can make this argument about any change.  we shouldn't be paralyzed by
> historical behavior and never make progress.  the automake manual provides
> background info about why chatty make is not a good thing.
>
I did not at all say that we should not do it.  I just pointed out there
are reasons some people might not want it as the new default, while
acknowledging that others might (e.g you and Corinna) and that it is a very
visible one that needs additional consideration.

> https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html#Silencing-Make
>
> the option is standard in the GNU ecosystem and adoption rate is only going
> up.  it's already in the --help of configure.  no one has to know or be an
> expert in automake to find it.
>
> OK, good.  But this underscores the need to know something for a change
for such a large impact.  (Why would one look under configure when make
output has a very large change?)

> adding the option to the newlib/README sounds reasonable since it already
> has a bunch of these.  want to send a patch ?
> -mike
>

The whole point of my response is that a README entry should be part of the
patch to begin with--you should be supplying it. (I didn't know about the
help in configure, what else would I miss?)
Craig