Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Lukas Slebodnik]

On (22/10/15 16:53), Michal Židek wrote:
>On 10/22/2015 04:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:13:11PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>On 10/22/2015 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
>in CI. See the attached simple patch.
>
>Michal

Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
is the reason..
>>>
>>>I thought that silent rules do not hide errors. If they do then
>>>of course they should not be enabled.
>>
>>Yes, warnings and errors are displayed, but what I was trying to say is
>>that if there's something wrong with linking binaries for example, then
>>we sometimes need to know exactly what objects were linked with what
>>libraries and the silent rules only show "CC" or "LD" there, especially
>>if all you get is a log.
>>
>>btw that's the reason why Fedora (and RHEL) prefer that silent rules
>>should not be used for builds...
>>
>>>
>>>I see now in the docs:
>>>"Note that silent rules are disabled by default; the user must enable them
>>>explicitly at either configure run time or at make run time. We think that
>>>this is a good policy, since it provides the casual user with enough
>>>information to prepare a good bug report in case anything breaks. "
>>>
>>>So yes, this patch is probably wrong. Sorry.
>>
>>I'm fine with the patch for local CI runs, but not the Jenkins runs..
>
>Thanks for explanation. I think the patch is not needed then.
>I can push the changes just to my local git repo. No need
>for master cahnges.
>
+1
If somene really need silent rule then he can do the local change.

Currently there is not a way how use different options
in local execution and in Jenkins.

I marked the patch in patchwork as rejected.

LS
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Michal Židek]

On 10/22/2015 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:

Hi,

I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
in CI. See the attached simple patch.

Michal


Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
is the reason..


I thought that silent rules do not hide errors. If they do then
of course they should not be enabled.

I see now in the docs:
"Note that silent rules are disabled by default; the user must enable 
them explicitly at either configure run time or at make run time. We 
think that this is a good policy, since it provides the casual user with 
enough information to prepare a good bug report in case anything breaks. "


So yes, this patch is probably wrong. Sorry.

Michal

___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

[SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Michal Židek]

Hi,

I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
in CI. See the attached simple patch.

Michal
>From 6ffb4c32a2571eca76260b7a424f5ec7ed6103a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= 
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:48:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

Silent rules make the compilation in foreground
much faster and the logs in CI more compact and
readable.
---
 Makefile.am | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index 15d99ce..4e456e2 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -2647,6 +2647,7 @@ intgcheck:
 	--prefix="$$prefix" \
 	--with-ldb-lib-dir="$$prefix"/lib/ldb \
 	--enable-intgcheck-reqs \
+	--enable-silent-rules \
 	$(INTGCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS); \
 	$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS); \
 	: Force single-thread install to workaround concurrency issues; \
-- 
2.1.0

___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
> in CI. See the attached simple patch.
> 
> Michal

Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
is the reason..
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:13:11PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
> >>in CI. See the attached simple patch.
> >>
> >>Michal
> >
> >Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
> >is the reason..
> 
> I thought that silent rules do not hide errors. If they do then
> of course they should not be enabled.

Yes, warnings and errors are displayed, but what I was trying to say is
that if there's something wrong with linking binaries for example, then
we sometimes need to know exactly what objects were linked with what
libraries and the silent rules only show "CC" or "LD" there, especially
if all you get is a log.

btw that's the reason why Fedora (and RHEL) prefer that silent rules
should not be used for builds...

> 
> I see now in the docs:
> "Note that silent rules are disabled by default; the user must enable them
> explicitly at either configure run time or at make run time. We think that
> this is a good policy, since it provides the casual user with enough
> information to prepare a good bug report in case anything breaks. "
> 
> So yes, this patch is probably wrong. Sorry.

I'm fine with the patch for local CI runs, but not the Jenkins runs..
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

[Michal Židek]

On 10/22/2015 04:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:13:11PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:

On 10/22/2015 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:

Hi,

I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
in CI. See the attached simple patch.

Michal


Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
is the reason..


I thought that silent rules do not hide errors. If they do then
of course they should not be enabled.


Yes, warnings and errors are displayed, but what I was trying to say is
that if there's something wrong with linking binaries for example, then
we sometimes need to know exactly what objects were linked with what
libraries and the silent rules only show "CC" or "LD" there, especially
if all you get is a log.

btw that's the reason why Fedora (and RHEL) prefer that silent rules
should not be used for builds...



I see now in the docs:
"Note that silent rules are disabled by default; the user must enable them
explicitly at either configure run time or at make run time. We think that
this is a good policy, since it provides the casual user with enough
information to prepare a good bug report in case anything breaks. "

So yes, this patch is probably wrong. Sorry.


I'm fine with the patch for local CI runs, but not the Jenkins runs..


Thanks for explanation. I think the patch is not needed then.
I can push the changes just to my local git repo. No need
for master cahnges.

Michal
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel