Re: [Automake-ng] Activating support for silent-rules unconditionally?

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:

> Right now, in mainstream Automake, support for silent rules is optional
> and activated only if the 'silent-rules' option is specified.
>
> I think the rationale behind this is the that the silent-rules machinery
> originally [1] only worked with make implementations supporteing nested
> variables expansions, which wasn't a POSIX-specified features, so that
> packages wanting to be "extra-portable" couldn't use the silent-rules
> support.
>
> But since Automake-NG only targets GNU make, and since silent rules are
> disabled by default even when the 'silent-rules' option is given [2], I
> think it would now be simpler to have support for silent rules always
> enabled [3].
>
> WDYT?

I think that this is fine as long as the default is for silent-rules 
to be disabled (i.e. verbose) and if Automake-ng silently ignores 
the 'silent-rules' option if it is specified so it is possible to 
switch between portable Automake and Automake-ng.

Bob

> Regards,
>  Stefano
>
> -*- Notes -*-
>
> [1] At least, until this patch by Paul Eggert:
>    <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2011-12/msg00151.html>
>    Motivate by automake bugs #9928 and #10237.
>
> [2] Unless the developer makes them enabled by default be calling
>    "AM_SILENT_RULES([yes])" in configure.ac.
>
> [3] The 'silent-rules' option will thus become a no-op, but it might be kept
>    for backward-compatibility for a while anyway if you feel that would be
>    warranted.

--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/