svn commit: r187132 - head/usr.bin/make

[David O'Brien]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:51:30AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20090130015518.GA20404 at hades.panopticon>
>             Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3 at amdmi3.ru> writes:
> : * David E. O'Brien (obrien at FreeBSD.org) wrote:
> : I think this should be backed out. Those verbose messages:
> : - Are completely unexpected, this violates POLA.
> : - Do break recognizeable make output people are used to
> : - Really uglify make output for some custom makefiles (for example,
> :   generated by cmake:
..
> : There's golden unix way rule: silence is golden. So please back this
> : out, as this will really annoy many people.
> 
> This makes at least two requests...  I hate them too.  really really
> really hate them.  -Q is default in all my trees.
> 
> The real problem is that it exposes way too many internal target names
> that are totally baffling, even to me who has a lot of build
> experience.  Also, it isn't clear how to use them.
> 
> O'Brien says they were disabled in 1994 for no good reason without
> discussion, so he's turning them back on, without discussion.  The
> project is a very different place than it was then, and doing this
> sort of thing is anti-social.

s/1994/14-Nov-1998/

100,000 of things change within FreeBSD without discission that
displeases some set of folks.  That's nothing new, but I'm restoring
compatibility and functionailty, not removing it.

I found src/Makefile.inc1 r134903 / rev 1.444 very noisy, but lived with
it.  I don't care that -s now implies -Q, except that it still leaves so
much "noise" like r134903 / rev 1.444 and other output.
[Why the log message is about 'Unanimous Consent' and not verbosity?]

I wonder what % build speed improvement quieting that behind 'make -s'
would give?

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)