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

Björn-Egil Dahlberg <>
Tue Jan 29 19:20:35 CET 2013

This would be less of an issue if we didn't put all application eggs in one
repository basket.

I'm probably preaching that sentence to the choir here ..

I've never suggested it should be reverted. I'm merely stating that if it
*could* be sanely implemented in a more maintain friendly way, it should be.
I'll let Anders and Anthony ponder this a bit.

// Björn-Egil

2013/1/29 Anthony Ramine <>

> Honestly, the sole improvement that could be done to that feature is not
> replicating it and using Automake instead. As I said earlier, it would be
> insane to make CC and LD and ERLC handle silent rules themselves.
> --
> Anthony Ramine
> Le 29 janv. 2013 à 12:12, Björn-Egil Dahlberg a écrit :
> > On 2013-01-29 10:57, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> >> V_CC and its friends are not valid shells commands as they may start
> with an @, I don't think CC itself should behave the same way.
> >>
> >> The maintainability shouldn't be a concern as only people in the know
> ever touch these makefiles anyway, and no one should modify them without
> looking at the other targets and commands for inspiration and code
> consistency.
> >>
> >> That being said, I won't take it personally if the patch is reverted,
> but Bjorn-Egil himself seems to quite like it :)
> >>
> > I think Anders raise an important point of maintainability. If it can be
> implemented with higher maintainability, perhaps it should be. I like the
> feature and I do want it. I don't believe it makes that much more difficult
> to maintain makefiles, but any improvements help.
> >
> > // Björn-Egil
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-patches mailing list
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/attachments/20130129/e961f53c/attachment.html>

More information about the erlang-patches mailing list