From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 7 12:14:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (unknown [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9D8157C3 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:14:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA20650; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:14:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08597; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:14:19 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:14:19 -0600 Message-Id: <199906071914.NAA08597@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Chuck Robey Cc: David Scheidt , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.lib.mk "@"'s In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > Why are many of the build lines in bsd.lib.mk hidden with leading @'s, > > > so that they don't display in the build? This is useless, it hides > > > things that go wrong, and hardly belongs here, it seems to me. > > > > > > > How often do your calls to ld, mv and rm fail? > > That's not the point, the point is that current is a bleeding edge > thing, not production, and the details should not be hidden, there's no > possible justification for that. Sure there is, in the same manner that we don't use 'cc -v' as the command line parameters to see *all* the excruciating details of how a program is compiled. The '@' calls are not considered important details, and as such are hidden. If we include *EVERYTHING* then finding the actual problem is often much harder due to trying to wade through the noise. The '@' commands help to reduce the noise, giving us a better signal/noise ratio. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message