On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:12:32 Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:09:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org 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