Slick build output

[Robert Shearman]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:

>Jason But <jbut at swin.edu.au> writes:
>  
>
>>- I have been a developer for 20 years and nothing frustrates me more than 
>>make output that is over complicated.  I see the point of printing the full 
>>command line when developing and debugging the Makefile and the make process.  
>>Once this is fixed however, I prefer a simple output from make telling me 
>>what is currently being compiled, I don't need to see all output every time.
>>    
>>
>
>It's pretty trivial to write a make wrapper that massages the output
>into whatever form you prefer.
>

Unless it's in CVS, only one person will benefit from it. That's not the 
open-source way.

>This way you get your preferred format
>with every project you build, you don't have to impose your tastes on
>everybody else,
>

If those tastes are shared by a majority of developers, then it 
shouldn't be a problem.

> and you avoid adding complexity (and non-portable
>code) into our makefiles.
>  
>

Ok, this is a problem. Does this mean you won't accept any patches to 
the makefiles to convert to "slick" build output?

Rob