[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attempt to beautify compilation
- Subject: Re: Attempt to beautify compilation
- From: Dan Pascu <dan (at) ag (dash) projects (dot) com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:48:31 +0200
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> Dan Pascu wrote:
> > On Monday 03 November 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I tried to streamline the compilation messages and I managed
> >> to reduce the noise a bit. It is not as good as I wanted to,
> >> but it is at least a beginning.
> >> I added an option --enable-beauty=yes/no to reduce the
> >> verbosity of gcc messages. The idea is that this option
> >> introduces a variable QUIET, which is set to '@echo Compiling $@'
> >> when the user wants to reduce the noise.
> > --enable-beauty is a _very_ confusing switch. What does it mean? My
> > first guess it would be that it has something to do with how wmaker
> > looks...
> I agree with you, the name was a bad choice. It should be something
> like --disable-compilation-noise or something like that.
Actually that is not noise :P
That is what _any_ developers would want to see. What you propose is a
switch to turn it off for people who are not interested in it, like users
compiling it themselves from source. So it can be named something like:
However I think this is a double edged sword, for it will make a bug
report coming from a user who has disabled it not provide enough detail
and would required developers to give him instructions to recompile
without turning that off, which would indeed increase mailing list...
IMO, nowadays very few people compile their own source. They are usually
developers, devoted users who want the latest & greatest or distribution
packagers. All of them need the verbose compile to be able to spot issues
So I'm not sure if this feature will outweight its side effects.
Just my 2 cents
To unsubscribe, send mail to email@example.com.