On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:12:32 Kim Phillips wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:09:58 -0400 > > Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 18:04:29 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > instead of silencing a somewhat complicated command that could break > > > > the build system if it goes wrong, use the mechanisms already in > > > > place if you want nice & concise output -- the --silent option to > > > > make. i dont see a problem with this output you've quoted in the > > > > normal run of things. > > > > > > I do. It is a change in behaviour and potentially braks a number of > > > build systems. > > > > as Kim highlighted, this has already been "broken" somewhat by other > > commits as sometimes output can be shown before the config line. so if > > it was > > what commits? awk is the only command in the area that isn't silenced > in make. wrt the output...I believe that was distclean speaking..make > config only emits "configuring for blah.."
it is not tied strictly to disclean. run config targets multiple times and see the same thing. `make ve8313; make ve8313`. > > breaking people, wouldnt they have complained by now ? > > both the MAKEALL and make blah_config behaviour have changed since: behavior changed !== breakage > I was originally confused because build verbosity is has a reversed > sense in u-boot (make is by default noisy, needs silencing vs. linux' > make is by default 'neat', needs verbosity flag set to be noisy), but I > tend to agree with WD on this one. Else, e.g., why isn't the mkconfig > invocation noisy? yes, the current behavior is pretty squirrelly imo -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
