<br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/10/25 Arjen de Korte<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Citeren Charles Lepple<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
We might want to keep the silent option off for Buildbot compilation because it hides a lot of the flags - that might make it harder to figure out things like the "overlinking" problem.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I certainly wouldn't want to run the Buildbot compilation with silent build enabled.<br>
<br>
I'm also uncertain which audience we try to reach with this. Do packagers really complain about the build process being too verbose? In case of problems, more output is usually better than virtually no output. And if you really feel lucky, there is always the option of sending all warning messages and/or debug output to /dev/null. What is the whole point of this?</blockquote>
</div><br>to answer your questions:<br>- we are targeting and trying to solve the same things as the linux kernel (and the like) does: not that much!<br>general compilation is more readable (if it can), warning are seen more easily, ...<br>
- full verbose output are still available, but apart from advanced users and the team, who need that?<br>- the buildbot would obviously still be in verbose mode by default, so adding "--disable-silent-rules" to DISTCHECK_FLAGS and DISTCHECK_LIGHT_FLAGS<br clear="all">
- support instructions for compilation will also require either configure with "--disable-silent-rules" or "make V=1"<br><br>cheers,<br>Arnaud<br><br>