Slick build output
rob at codeweavers.com
Mon Jan 31 11:23:35 CST 2005
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
>This way you get your preferred format
>with every project you build, you don't have to impose your tastes on
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?
More information about the wine-devel