[PATCH] Have make be more silent by default

[Anton Lundin]

On 08 January, 2015 - Anton Lundin wrote:

> On 08 January, 2015 - Jef Driesen wrote:
> 
> > On 2015-01-06 22:33, Anton Lundin wrote:
> > >--- a/Makefile.am
> > >+++ b/Makefile.am
> > >@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ if ENABLE_EXAMPLES
> > > SUBDIRS += examples
> > > endif
> > >
> > >+AM_MAKEFLAGS = -s
> > > ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4
> > 
> > Although I like the idea, this patch doesn't work for me.
> > 
> > Without the patch, this is what I get:
> > 
> > $ make -C ../linux/
> ...
> > 
> > And with the patch:
> > 
> > $ make -C ../linux/
> ...
> > 
> > Only the lines starting with "make[3]:" are gone. If I pass the -s flag
> > directly (even without the patch) the output is much less verbose:
> 
> Because when you call make with -C it adds a implicit -w , which means:
>   -w, --print-directory       Print the current directory.
> 
> > 
> > $ make -C ../linux/ -s
> >  cd ../source && /bin/bash
> > /home/jef/Projects/libdivecomputer/work/source/missing automake-1.14
> > --foreign Makefile
> >  cd . && /bin/bash ./config.status Makefile
> > config.status: creating Makefile
> > Making all in include
> > Making all in libdivecomputer
> > Making all in src
> > Making all in examples
> > 
> 
> Yes, because that suppresses the implicit -w.
> 
> 
> The patch works if you're standing in your "linux" build-dir to begin
> with.
> 
> We can use --no-print-directory if you would like to remove the
> implicit -w, just, but thats a gnu-make flag, but who uses something
> else nowadays?
> 

I still would argue for that a patch like this makes sense. Do you
disagree?


//Anton


-- 
Anton Lundin	+46702-161604