On Thursday 2023-12-14 13:59, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
>Add an `AM_V_PRINTF` variable to control whether `printf` is called.
>
>Normally `AM_V_*` variables work by prepending
>
> @echo blah;
>
>to a whole rule to replace the usual output with something briefer.
>Since, in this case, the aim is to suppress `printf` commands _within_ a
>rule, `AM_V_PRINTF` works be prepending `:` to the `printf` command.
>@@ -228,19 +232,19 @@ man_run = \
> for ext in $(sort ${1}); do \
> f="${srcdir}/libxt_$$ext.man"; \
> if [ -f "$$f" ]; then \
>- printf "\t+ $$f" >&2; \
>+ ${AM_V_PRINTF} printf "\t+ $$f" >&2; \
I believe I was the author of this "for" block.
The intent of V=0 is to hide long build commands and show only the
output name. That works for most people most of the time. It did not
for me in this very build step. ${1}, i.e. the sections, are
dependent on configure options like --disable-ipv4/--disable-ipv6, so
I felt it made sense not only to print the output name (as V=0 does)
but also the source names—but still not the verbose build command.
With that original goal in mind, silencing echo/printf inside this
recipe, for the usecase of V=0, is incorrect.
[Patches 1 to 6 are fine by me.]
