On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 04:17 AM, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> On 07/10/02 18:11 +1000, Ken Williams wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 08:38 AM, Sisyphus wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It might be worth thinking about giving varying degrees of >>>> the output >>>> depending on command line options, or CONFIG directives. >>>> >>> >>> Actually - now that I take the time to think about it - I >>> don't see any >>> problem with altering "$make > out.make 2>&1" to "$make". >> >> I agree. I'd rather remove layers between me and the build process >> output too. If I want it in a file, I'd redirect it there. > > Well, I'm not so sure. The make file would print output on > success as well as > failure. I'm not willing to make that the default behaviour. Inline is > suppose to be magic, like Perl. You don't get messages when Perl is > compiling. I think I'll continue to write the messages to a > file, but dump > the file to the terminal if an error occurs. Oh, I just realized we may be talking about two different cases. I'm speaking mainly about the module case, and I think you may be speaking mainly about the script case. I do agree that scripts shouldn't dump status/commands unless there's an error. For modules, I'd prefer for the status/commands to be displayed by default, but I probably won't argue too strenuously for it if there's a simple way for me to turn it on. -Ken
