On (22/10/15 16:53), Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/22/2015 04:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:13:11PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>On 10/22/2015 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I think it is better to enable silent-rules by default
>>>>in CI. See the attached simple patch.
>>>>
>>>>Michal
>>>
>>>Why is it better? If the build fails, then chances are we need to see what
>>>is the reason..
>>
>>I thought that silent rules do not hide errors. If they do then
>>of course they should not be enabled.
>
>Yes, warnings and errors are displayed, but what I was trying to say is
>that if there's something wrong with linking binaries for example, then
>we sometimes need to know exactly what objects were linked with what
>libraries and the silent rules only show "CC" or "LD" there,
especially
>if all you get is a log.
>
>btw that's the reason why Fedora (and RHEL) prefer that silent rules
>should not be used for builds...
>
>>
>>I see now in the docs:
>>"Note that silent rules are disabled by default; the user must enable them
>>explicitly at either configure run time or at make run time. We think that
>>this is a good policy, since it provides the casual user with enough
>>information to prepare a good bug report in case anything breaks. "
>>
>>So yes, this patch is probably wrong. Sorry.
>
>I'm fine with the patch for local CI runs, but not the Jenkins runs..
Thanks for explanation. I think the patch is not needed then.
I can push the changes just to my local git repo. No need
for master cahnges.
+1
If somene really need silent rule then he can do the local change.
Currently there is not a way how use different options
in local execution and in Jenkins.
I marked the patch in patchwork as rejected.
LS