Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> * Makefile.am (AM_V_DL, AM_V_DL_, AM_V_DL_0): New variables. >>> * gnu-system.am (gnu/packages/bootstrap/x86_64-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz) >>> (gnu/packages/bootstrap/i686-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz) >>> (gnu/packages/bootstrap/armhf-linux/guile-2.0.11.tar.xz) >>> (gnu/packages/bootstrap/mips64el-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz): Use $(AM_V_DL). >> >> Since downloading is pretty unusual and unexpected (understandably so), >> I wonder if we should it leave this one as noisy as it is so that people >> see the name of the script that downloads the thing and inspect it. >> >> WDYT? > > Indeed, this is unusual and should be avoided in a “normal” make > context. However I am not sure about the effect of noise in such case: > > /bin/mkdir -p `dirname > "gnu/packages/bootstrap/mips64el-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz"` > GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH=".:$GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH" /usr/bin/guile > --no-auto-compile -L "." -L "." "./build-aux/download.scm" > "gnu/packages/bootstrap/mips64el-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz" > "994680f0001346864aa2c2cc5110f380ee7518dcd701c614291682b8e948f73b" > downloading file `gnu/packages/bootstrap/mips64el-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz' > from > `http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap/mips64el-linux/20131110/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz'... > > this can easily be overlooked as “another” compilation warning produced > by Guile. > > DL gnu/packages/bootstrap/i686-linux/guile-2.0.9.tar.xz
Actually that’d be fine if the “downloading file” message above would remain visible. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’.
