[SSSD] [PATCH] CI: Add --enable-silent-rules flag

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Fri Oct 23 06:42:04 UTC 2015


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


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list