Re: Modify Output to look like Linux Kernel

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:20:42AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >>On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:24:47AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >>>>On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Even easier. Perhaps someone should post a patch for this feature!
> >>>>
> >>>>There is (it's been discussed on this mailing list more than once).
> >>>>But I see you in one  of the discussions..
> >>>>
> >>>>For those who came late, here's one of the places where the automake
> >>>>maintainer opted out:
> >>>>
> >>>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-08/msg00024.html
> >>>
> >>>That is unfortunate. 1 million users can't be wrong.
> >>
> >>Obviously you're not referring to automake (since _it_ doesn't have a
> >>million developers writing scripts for it).
> >
> >No, I am referring to automake, its developers and USERS. I think most
> >USERS want this feature, and I was just being silly saying it.
> 
> well, there's two ways of reading the comment: (1) and the "million" users 
> are happy with the package as it standard, or (2) that the "million" users 
> would like the change (to make the package optionally quieter).

Sorry, I believe that most automake users would be happy if automake
natively supported a feature to customize the output. I don't really see
the filter as a reasonable solution to this problem.

> (in either case, the number of users who actually notice this is very 
> likely an order of magnitude smaller, while the developers are again 
> another order of magnitude fewer - the point being that most users of 
> automake couldn't construct a makefile without some additional guidance).

Hmmm. I see one other point of ambiguity. I was using this definition,
  users - people who untar and configure && make a package
  developer - person who creates a package using automake
but now I realize you weren't using that definition.

What I was originally suggesting is that I think there is literally
thousands, to tens of thousands of people that would appreciate it if
the automake output could be configurable when they do, ./configure &&
make.

My friends know that I use automake to maintain a few packages. The most
common question I get is, "Is it possible to make the output look like
the linux kernel?"

With all of that said, I still personally prefer the verbose output. To
me, that is always the most useful.

Bob Rossi