On 2023-12-14, at 15:32:26 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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.
Indeed you were.
> 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.
Ah, I see. Let's leave it as it is then.
J.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
