Re: [jamboost] Re: Upcoming changes in default bjam output

From: Michael Stevens (mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-10 08:50:03

On Monday 10 Oct 2005 08:23, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 00:43, David Abrahams wrote:
> > >>I think we may need some small extension to allow the suppression of
> > >>the executed commands for cases like the "run" rule that's used in
> > >>testing: it's so ugly as to be unhelpful.
> > >>
> > >>If I don't hear loud objections in the next 24 hours, I'm going to
> > >>implement this change and check it in.
> > >
> > > I am sad to hear that. Not outputting the commands executed is one of
> > > the things I most appreciate about BB.
>
> Seconded. Say, when building KDE programs the amount of "/usr/bin/libtool
> bla-bla-bla" lines is much larger then amount of anything reasonable. It's
> next to impossible to find warning messages if building from console.

I don't want to stand in the way progress! But I must agree the ability to 
read warnings an error when using BB is one of it's biggest advantages. I 
really like the current default!
Maybe a compromise would be to provide a '--verbose' style option so BB would 
enable more output which is useful for build parsers and users who do not 
which to use '-d2'

Michael

-- 
___________________________________
Michael Stevens Systems Engineering
34128 Kassel, Germany
Phone/Fax: [phone]
Navigation Systems, Estimation and
Bayesian Filtering
http://bayesclasses.sf.net
___________________________________