Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 19/12/2022 10:26, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> In [1] I made the same change to our Makefile, let's follow-up and do >> the same here. >> For "cmake" this is particularly nice with "-G Ninja", as before >> we'd >> emit ~40 lines of overflowed progress bar output, but now it's only >> the one line of "ninja"'s progress bar. > > I don't really have a strong opinion either way on this but if it > matches what we do in the Makefile than it sounds sensible. As a one-shot change, it might be sensible to claim consistency by saying "we do the same thing in two places", but I'd worry more about the root cause of such inconsistency in the first place, i.e. can we have some trick to ensure that two build systems will not reimplement the same thing slightly differently? It also is worth examining if having "the same change" is a good idea in the first place. The justification given "In [1]" was that a build driven by our Makefile were concise and non-verbose overall, but with --stat that concise output pattern was broken. I do not know (and I do not have particular interest in knowing) how a build driven by cmake looks like, but does it also aim the same concise output where output --stat does not fit well, or do folks who daily build with cmake find the output with --stat sit well in the output from other things given there? If the latter, making "the same change" as the Makefile side may not make much sense.
