On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 08:31:31AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > Juergen Leising writes: > >On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 05:29:54PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>OTOH, there is a different, and IMHO orthogonal component: even with > >>--silent, libtool outputs a little bit of information (which I believe > >>your patch works on as well). The question is: Should we add another > >>option to be completely silent, or maybe just make --silent be > >>completely silent? What do you/the others think? > > >..., exactly, this is what my patch was meant to be about: > >Complete silence. It's really useful when you try and find > >errors in third party software you are not too much familiar > >with. > > I would probably be inclined to accept a patch enforcing complete silence. > Nobody has stepped up to argue whether or not a new switch should be > necessary for this, I am pretty indifferent to this myself.
Rather than another switch, how about if --silent is given more than one, libtool becomes "really silent". Kinda like --verbose being given more than once for some programs being more "verbose". -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])