Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:14:19 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.lib.mk "@"'s Message-ID: <199906071914.NAA08597@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906071503160.679-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990607135557.8162A-100000@shell-2.enteract.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906071503160.679-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906071914.NAA08597>