[erlang-patches] Implement ./otp_build configure --enable-silent-rules

Björn-Egil Dahlberg <>
Fri Jan 11 18:06:41 CET 2013


In review.

This looks nice and the make output looks crisp and clear. Ehum .. 
apparently warnings is easier to see as well =o

Did you consider doing something like moving the sed rules to 
make/otp.mk.in instead of changing all the files?

$(APP_TARGET): $(APP_SRC) ../vsn.mk
         $(vsn_verbose)sed -e 's;%VSN%;$(VSN);' $< > $@

$(APPUP_TARGET): $(APPUP_SRC) ../vsn.mk
         $(vsn_verbose)sed -e 's;%VSN%;$(VSN);' $< > $@

I'm not sure if it would be best or if it even works, just like to hear 
your thoughts on it.

// Björn-Egil


On 2012-11-29 10:49, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> Le 28 nov. 2012 à 17:31, Jachym Holecek a écrit :
>
>> # Tuncer Ayaz 2012-11-28:
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>>>> I got bored of the too verbose output of the build process,
>> The output isn't there to amuse you but to give you information for
>> troubleshooting in case things go wrong. ;-)
> I never said I did this patch to have a fancy output or to be amused by it.
>
> In my quest to EEP20: Split the atoms [1], I need to update a lot of files without ever messing with the Makefiles nor adding any file to the build process or even to the Git repository. Should I be bothered by obscure GCC flags that don't concern me while doing so? Should I not be able to view the various warnings caused by my changes with just a glance? I could use GCC's -Werror but what should I do about warnings that are independent of my tinkering?
>
>>>> so I added automake's silent rules to Erlang/OTP.
>> I never understood the point of a build process generating incomplete
>> progress report. Either I wan't all the details (almost always) or
>> just the final outcome -- something you can do without any patching:
>>
>>   $ if ! make > /tmp/build.log 2>&1 ;then echo "BUILD FAILED!!!" ; fi
> I could just do make "2>&1 | tee make.log" but it is still a pain to find the relevant warnings in the produced make.log file.
>
>>>> Here is an example of output produced with silent rules:
>>>> https://gist.github.com/4160201
>>>>
>>>> I may have missed some build tools' invocations as I can only compile
>>>> Erlang on my Mac.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:master...enable-silent-rules
>>>> https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:master...enable-silent-rules.patch
>>>>
>>>> git fetch https://github.com/nox/otp enable-silent-rules
>>> Nice patch, but I would prefer to make the default be silent.
>> That's actively harmful -- a build failing on you with useless output
>> is already bad enough, having to re-run the build is annoying on its
>> own, having to additionally figure out the option that will give you
>> useful output is almost insulting.
>
> I'm with you on letting it non-default; I sometimes yell at rebar for this very reason when I want to see its erlc invocations.
>
> [1] You can follow my progress on this on https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:master...eep20
>



More information about the erlang-patches mailing list