On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:34:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I'm afraid I'm with Reinhold. As a *programmer*, I consider it very bad
practice to ignore warnings. For the system to hide them from me, well !!!
They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
point
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:26:00PM +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
out/parser.cc:2392: warning: conversion to 'short int' from 'int' may
alter its value
[...]
[...] That out/parser is a perfect example - it *may*
be innocuous, or it *may* be a serious problem. It really ought to be
checked out and
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
[snip very well argued case]
Reinhold,
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh...@kainhofer.com
[snip very well argued case]
Reinhold,
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I
do, and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The
- Original Message -
From: Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh
On 8/9/11 9:34 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote
Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings during the build
process. If I grep the output of make
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:21:26PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
at them. There are nine warnings from the code compiler:
And that number is really amazing and absolutely proves my point: Coders PAY
attention to warnings and
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
There are many more warnings ( 180) if you're compiling a 64-bit
binary. They
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
There are many more warnings ( 180)
On 8/9/11 2:04 PM, Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk wrote:
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really
Am Tuesday, 9. August 2011, 17:34:57 schrieb Phil Holmes:
They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
point of how you would see them in 37,000 lines of console output.
Of these 37071 lines, exactly 34111 are only from the font generation in mf/.
When coding,
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
- will will ***NOT*** display any errors from g++. (second point)
- exception: we ***MIGHT*** display some portion(s) of the
relevant log file(s). The policy uses the word might here,
not must. There is a huge difference
Am Sonntag, 7. August 2011, 11:11:13 schrieb Phil Holmes:
There's no intention of stopping make showing errors. There is an issue
with warnings - make doc produces so many that the output is pretty much
unreadable, and they've been ignored for a long time - so having warnings
turned off by
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:48:47PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
... if we are still this unclear about precisely what the policy
states,
No, the policy is clear in that regard. It's just that this is a decision I
simply
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
wrote
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Keith OHara
k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Make does
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
Building the program (as opposed
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been
taking the proposal too literally.
I know no reason why it shouldn't. Have you tried putting code that
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
The user may optionally request additional output to be
printed; this is controlled
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
V=x option. Presumably this is done by increasing x? If we support
this option, we should
Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from make(1).
* By default, no other output will be displayed on the
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
Building the program (as opposed to documentation) is now *very* nice, with
make -s bin
where -s is short for --silent to tell make not to print the commands she
runs. We see errors or warnings from the changed files and nothing
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
run.
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
the proposal too literally.
* There will be no additional “progress messages”
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:18:36PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
My only comment is that it's generally the case that output is directed to
logfiles using the redirect operator . If we do this, it's hard to make
it also appear
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:07:05PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
run.
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
the proposal too
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always be concerns about specific
technical details... but I think we've got an ok set of guidelines
for future build system work, and it's time to start producing
patches.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:17:23PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh...@kainhofer.com
To see the warnings, you'll then have to wade through thousands of
log files...
make doc already produces hundreds of warnings. It might be
thousands,
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:34 AM
Are there any problems with those guidelines?
Not from me. Let's give them a try.
Trevor
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3798 - Release Date: 07/30/11
LGTM.
2011/7/31 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
but I'm really hoping that he can start
Am Sunday, 31. July 2011, 01:34:16 schrieb Graham Percival:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from make(1).
* By default, no other output will be displayed on the
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from make(1).
* By default, no other output will be displayed on the
console, with one exception: if a build fails, we might
display some
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
Am Sunday, 31. July 2011, 01:34:16 schrieb Graham Percival:
** Proposal details
When you run
: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 3)
To see the warnings, you'll then have to wade
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:36:38PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 29 July 2011 17:20, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
Valentin's note name changes from Dec 2010 or so;
They come from parsing
We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
but I'm really hoping that he can start work; it's been a month!
Are there any problems with those
On 7/30/11 5:34 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. He's twiddling
his thumbs until we get the basic guidelines down. Of course
there will be technical implementation problems to work out later,
but I'm really hoping that he
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2011, 08:25:25 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
Graham Percival writes:
You mean, like
23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
lilypond-book will
2011/7/29 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com:
The other thing is that all commands called by make are echoed on the console,
always including several lines of include pathes. While this might sound
useful, in fact it isn't because the exact command does not help you. make
seems to set
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2011, 08:25:25 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
Graham Percival writes:
You
- Original Message -
From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com
To: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
2011/7/29 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 12:55:09 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
Currently, the doc build is calling lilypond in verbose mode, creating
thousands of unnecessary lines like
Reinhold - I've been looking at the build system in some depth and am very
well aware of this.
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 12:55:09 schrieb Phil Holmes
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:30:24PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
[/home/reinhold/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/string-tunings-
init.ly
Using `nederlands' note names...
[string]
...
[string]
Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
Valentin's note name
straightforward and a matter of hours.
Of course, that no longer belongs here in the GOP-PROP 5 (build system
output), but is a general feature request for lilypond. The build system could
then use it, but that's a different matter.
Since we print all messages to stderr, there is no way
However, I have failed and still fail to see where the lilypond
internals printed with --verbose can be helpful in any way during
the docs build. Those verbose debug messages are useful for
debugging a lilypond bug.
Yep.
However, in the docs build, we are not interested in how lilypond
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:56:36 schrieben Sie:
However, in the docs build, we are not interested in how lilypond
works internally, but rather where a doc build fails due to bad
input in a .ly or .tely file.
I suggest a different route: Normally, after an error message has been
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:56:36 schrieben Sie:
However
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:38:53PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh...@kainhofer.com
Yes, that would be *extremely* helpful (not only for the lilypond
documentation, but also to other lilypond-book users). The only
question is:
who will
On 29 July 2011 17:20, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Could somebody get rid of these already? They're left-over from
Valentin's note name changes from Dec 2010 or so;
They come from parsing string-tunings-init.ly.
they were
debugging messages which were supposed to be
Sorry, this reply went only to Graham by accident. Here it is for lilypond-
devel:
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Betreff: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Datum: Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 23:07:11
Von: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
An: Graham
Am Samstag, 30. Juli 2011, 00:42:58 schrieb Reinhold Kainhofer:
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:20:25 schrieben Sie:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:30:24PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
[/home/reinhold/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/string-tunings
-
init.ly
Using
Graham Percival writes:
You mean, like
23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
lilypond-book will certainly be valuable!
Assuming that --redirect-lilypond-output is used during build
Graham Percival writes:
You mean, like
23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on
lilypond-book will certainly be valuable!
Assuming that --redirect-lilypond-output is used during build
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:25:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
You mean, like
23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0
?
Yes (I would have called the option --log).
IMO a long descriptive name is better than a short name that's
open to interpretation.
I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
Here's an updated proposal.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
** Proposal summary
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from
Graham Percival writes:
I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
Here's an updated proposal.
Ah, great.
So what if we add a --log option to lilypond-book (and probably
to lilypond), that [always in verbose mode?] writes individual
.log files alongside the output. Would
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:33:04AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
I still don't feel that we have any kind of consensus on this.
Here's an updated proposal.
So what if we add a --log option to lilypond-book (and probably
to lilypond), that [always in verbose
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk; Phil Holmes
em...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sat, Jul
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca; Trevor Daniels
t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
- Original
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
1+ for Graham's proposal, provided his
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Patch attached. Not convinced it's worth a Rietveld for essentially
one line? Works on my system.
Thanks, pushed as soon as I'm at a real internet connection[1].
Could you add it to
make help
and the CG?
[1] BC Ferries gives free
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011
Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:38 PM
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
James (or another docs guru) - any chance of adding this to the CG
(probably in 4.5.1 Using make)
The command make bin will check to see whether any changes have
been made in the
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
My apologies; my old eyes noticed the bin-clean target, but
skipped over the bin in the bottom list.
Cheers
,- Graham
___
2011/7/21 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if silence is a form of consent [1] in this context.
In my case it is, i guess :)
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely what
the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
But I have one comment. By far the commonest use of make
by developers is to compile the most recent change to C++
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you need to see the relevant messages on the console
to
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
If you have changed only one or two C++ routines
the compile and link part of make take only a few seconds.
There's no point in letting it go on to check all the doc files.
ok, let's publicize the build on bin/lilypond target.
2011/7/23 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you need to
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if silence is a form of consent [1] in this context.
In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding
precisely what the effect of this change will be on
Trevor Daniels writes:
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if silence is a form of consent [1] in this context.
In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely
what the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
+1
I proposed
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:07:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
I proposed to adopt the linux/git/automake convention of using silent
rules so that you get something like
make
CC lily/foo.c
..
LB Documentation/web.texi
LB Documentation/notation.texi
or what you currently
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:49:01AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if silence is a form of consent [1] in this context.
In my case it's because I have difficulty in
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if silence is a form of consent [1] in this context.
[1] true story from a friend's lifeguard training. If somebody if
choking but declines any help, the lifeguard (in Canada, at least)
is legally obliged to watch the
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
I think there should be an option to turn it all back on if you want
- a sort of inverse of QUIET_BUILD. We should also get rid of the
QUIET_BUILD variable completely.
Agreed. Maybe using the V=1 thing that Jan was
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 05:20:02PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I'm not certain if it's possible to cause make(1) to automatically
put its output into a
2011/7/14 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
** Proposal summary
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files. (including
output from make(1))
* We will still display the output of make(1) on the console.
* No other output will be
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:09 PM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (update)
Update on this; I'm not ready to call it a probable decision
yet.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival
* All output will be saved to various log files. (including
output from make(1))
* We will still display the output of make(1) on the console.
I read these as mutually
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (update)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
* We do not change the output of make
Am Sonntag, 10. Juli 2011, 12:50:19 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
I think we should use logfiles by default -- actually, we should
use logfiles exclusively --
Phil Holmes writes:
My concern with this is that we may get a lot of people surprised and
confused by this
Probably not. Linux and Git have been doing this for years and
autoconf/automake is also adopting this convention. Everyone
building packages knows to use --disable-silent-rules or just
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:53:08AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Little bit difficult as it seems, so here's a simple version (without
the combined log). You can invoke it like this:
lilylog.sh o.log e.log ls -l . dontexist
which is the `verbose' mode (i.e. you still see stdout and stderr, but
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
Am Sonntag, 10. Juli 2011, 12:50:19 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
From: Graham
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 01:10:05PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
But we don't solve the problem of the log output. I mean, how many people
really **want** the full output from the build system?
What about a *default* output similar to what you now get with
QUIET_BUILD=1? That is currently a
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:24:37AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Almost right. However, try not to invent something new. Please just
use the autoconf/automake behaviour, which follows mostly the convention
that Linux and Git git have set.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:10:40AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:24:37AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
* Passing --enable-silent-rules to configure will cause build rules to
be less verbose; the option --disable-silent-rules is the default and
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
* We do not change the output of make, make doc, or any of the
other make commands - this is the default.
* We use the variable QUIET_BUILD to signal to the make system
that we want the minimum of progress
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html
(proposal written by Phil Holmes. I have a few qualms, which I
will send when I have a bit more time)
** Proposal summary
Let’s decide what we want to see when we do:
make
make doc
** Rationale
Before any of the current work on
* Wherever possible, stderr output should go to *.err.log and
stdout output to *.log
Wouldn't it be better to either collect both stdout and stderr in
the same log file or to use three log files .err.log, .out.log and
.log, where the latter contains the combined streams?
I vote
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Kilian k...@outback.escape.de
To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:59:37PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to either collect both stdout and stderr in
the same log file or to use three log files .err.log, .out.log and
.log, where the latter contains the combined streams? Otherwise you are
loosing the context
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
