[ adding libtool@ in the loop; replies can remove autoconf@ ]
* Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:37:37AM CEST:
>
> BTW, earlier libtool did have any way of replacing -fPIC with -fpic. I
> remember I asked for this long time ago. Is it possible now? I know
> -fpic isn't recommende
Hi Ben,
* Ben Elliston wrote on Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:07:03AM CET:
> My patch detects when libtool is invoked by make -s and sets the same
> flag (opt_silent) as if it were invoked with --silent.
This is an (undocumented) FAQ:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/8
large libraries using libtool,
libtool produces a lot of output. For example, the compiler invocation
command is shown, even if make -s suppresses the libtool command itself.
This means that make -s is not silent at all; the building of libraries
is very noisy and defeats the purpose of make -s.
My
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:06:00PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:00:35PM CET:
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > >
> > > Since repeatedly nobody stepped forward to do this, I wrote that patch
> > > myself now. OK to apply to HEAD?
> >
> > Yes. Than
eems that I was wrong about the impact to my package. With the
update, it seems that default output and 'make -s' output are as
intended (i.e. better than before).
Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfr
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:29:33AM CET:
For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever want's
it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a patch to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Since repeatedly no
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:00:35PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > Since repeatedly nobody stepped forward to do this, I wrote that patch
> > myself now. OK to apply to HEAD?
>
> Yes. Thank you.
Done, thanks!
Cheers,
Ralf
_
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:29:33AM CET:
>> For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever want's
>> it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a patch to
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Since repeatedly nobody stepped
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:29:33AM CET:
>
> For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever want's
> it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a patch to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Since repeatedly nobody stepped forward to do this, I wrote
like
am__lt_silent = `for f in $$MAKEFLAGS; do case $$f in *=* | --[!s]*);; \
*s*) echo --silent;; esac done`
LIBTOOL = $(SHELL) $(top_builddir)/libtool $(am__lt_silent)
but that
- generates even more visual clutter if *not* doing `make -s',
- and spawns another subshell upon each libtool invocat
case when a new supermake
enters the scene and the authors of all the various tools that it calls have
to implement yet another SUPERMAKEFLAGS.
This concept does not scale well.
> If `make -s' were to influence libtool verbosity, there are several
> choices to implement this:
> - ins
|| make
> > >
> > > well, we're after the automatic output going away, not intended output.
> >
> > So what's intended output?
> I think that the output should be similar to make -s. This is also not
> completely quiet, compiler warnings and the like are s
intended output.
>
> So what's intended output?
I think that the output should be similar to make -s. This is also not
completely quiet, compiler warnings and the like are shown. It just means
that the make commands should not be shown, whereas the output of the
commands are very w
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Bob Rossi wrote:
Well, I might be over simplifying things because I don't understand the
big picture. When I type 'make -s' I assume that the compiler commands
that make kicks off will not be sent to stdout/stderr. I do expect that
if the user has some stuff
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:15:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58:09PM CET:
> > > On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > What I meant wa
On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58:09PM CET:
> > On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > What I meant was: even with
> > > make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> > >
> >
Bob Rossi wrote:
> Well, I might be over simplifying things because I don't understand the
> big picture. When I type 'make -s' I assume that the compiler commands
> that make kicks off will not be sent to stdout/stderr.
You do not see the compiler commands kicked
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:30:21PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58:09PM CET:
> > On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > >
> > > What I meant was: even with
> > > make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--s
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58:09PM CET:
> On Thursday 10 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > What I meant was: even with
> > make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> >
> > there will be some leftover output done by libtool. If somebody wan
t silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a
> > > patch to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> >
> > That shouldn't bee too difficult.
>
> Misunderstanding again, this time my fault, sorry.
>
> What I meant was: even with
> make -s LIBTOOLFLAG
n to send a patch to
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> That shouldn't bee too difficult.
Misunderstanding again, this time my fault, sorry.
What I meant was: even with
make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
there will be some leftover output done by libtool. If somebody wants
to fix that, be inv
On Thursday 10 January 2008 08:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever want's
> it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a patch to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
That shouldn't bee too difficult.
As a hint, make adds 's' to the env
Hello Mike,
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:17:45PM CET:
> the request is to have the --silent flag passed automatically to
> libtool if the -s flag is passed to make.
alias 'make_s=make -s LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent'
For whatever output is left done by libto
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:52:20PM CET:
> > When I do a 'make -s', I usually get no output from the compiler
> > commands. However with libtool, when it goes into,
> > mkdir .libs
> > t
Hello Bob,
* Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:52:20PM CET:
>
> When I do a 'make -s', I usually get no output from the compiler
> commands. However with libtool, when it goes into,
> mkdir .libs
> then I see the compiler output.
To me, you speak in riddle
Hi,
When I do a 'make -s', I usually get no output from the compiler
commands. However with libtool, when it goes into,
mkdir .libs
then I see the compiler output.
Do you think this is the correct behavior? I would like to see the
output suppressed in this circumstance.
This is just
"make -s" doesn't seem to stop the echoing of
install and ranlib commands. Can this behavior
be over ridden?
trt
--
Thomas R. Treadway
Computer Scientist
Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab
7000 East Avenue, L-365
Livermore, CA 94550-0611
___
27 matches
Mail list logo
