* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 03:43:00PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:36:55PM CET:
> >> This patch prefixes the compile and link commands in the generated
> >> Makefile's with $(AM_PFX).
[...]
> > What's the improvement ove
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 08:43 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> Hello Jason,
>>>
>>> thanks for your work. While I'm not to judge this, and pretty
>>> indifferent about it, a couple of question to clarify a bit:
>>>
>>> * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on T
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 08:43 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Hello Jason,
> >
> > thanks for your work. While I'm not to judge this, and pretty
> > indifferent about it, a couple of question to clarify a bit:
> >
> > * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Jason,
>
> thanks for your work. While I'm not to judge this, and pretty
> indifferent about it, a couple of question to clarify a bit:
>
> * Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:36:55PM CET:
>> This patch prefixes the compile and link commands in the
Hello Jason,
thanks for your work. While I'm not to judge this, and pretty
indifferent about it, a couple of question to clarify a bit:
* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:36:55PM CET:
>
> This patch prefixes the compile and link commands in the generated
> Makefile's with $(AM_
I know there's been patches in the past to reduce the output of the
makefiles generated by automake that have not been accepted. I understand
that the main reasons for opposing such a patch are:
a) hiding output might result in more incorrect or uninformative bug reports
b) it is more bloat in the
