Re: [Help-smalltalk] [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

[Eric Blake]

On 08/21/2012 10:30 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> And I've done that already where possible and reasonable.  For example,
>>> the 'silent-rules' option is now active by default, and the tags-related
>>> rules have been reworked and improved.
> 
> Well, from a distro maintainer's view this a bad idea.

Ralf, how many times do we have to tell you?

Setting the automake option 'silent-rules' does NOT make the build
silent by default, it merely enables the possibility of a silent build.
 Remember, when 'silent-rules' was first implemented, we did it with an
implementation that violated POSIX make, and so we made it optional
whether your Makefile would work on 95% of make implementations by
supporting silent rules at the expense of POSIX (you, the end user,
still decide whether to be silent or noisy), or whether your Makefile
would work on 100% of make implementations but lack the ability to
configure silent vs. noisy (you, the end user, have no choice).  Since
that original implementation, we came up with a way to make silent rules
configurable in a manner compliant with 100% of make implementations,
without violating POSIX.  Therefore, we can now ALWAYS emit the automake
code that allows you, the end user, a choice between silent or noisy.

It is still up to individual packages whether the build will be silent
or noisy by default, and it remains something that you can override
package defaults with a config.site that forces noisy builds.  The
'silent-rules' change in automake change did NOT make more builds
instantly silent, nor are we preventing you from your goal of noisy
builds for the Fedora buildbots.  Quit beating a dead horse to spread
FUD about something which is not true.

-- 
Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature