Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:30:58 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: KATO Tsuguru <tkato@prontomail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PRs ports/56767...56858 Message-ID: <3F64D002.5010605@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20030915023557.5434f58c.tkato@prontomail.com> References: <20030914153245.79ba8838.tkato@prontomail.com> <3F644E7A.1040806@fillmore-labs.com> <20030914230644.447e9891.tkato@prontomail.com> <3F6479F7.6040706@fillmore-labs.com> <20030915023557.5434f58c.tkato@prontomail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
KATO Tsuguru wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:23:51 +0200 > Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote: > >>You mean PR ports/34988? >> >>I have a similar PR 56600: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/56600 >> >>I can't see how this relates to "ECHO -> ECHO_MSG", though. > > As far as I guess, ECHO_MSG or ECHO_CMD should have to be > used instead of ECHO in ports Makefile. In other words, > -s flag must be ignored by default. It appears there is no > documentary evidence, though. Then what is the point in redefining ECHO depending on -s? >>When I use the -s flag, I want make to work, but silent. > > The function you want is availabe if "ECHO_MSG=${ECHO}" is > added to /etc/make.conf. Perhaps this way is appropriate > to become default value.... Hmmm... I consider it silly if a port tells me 'YOU CAN BUILD ME WITH THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS' if I just do a makesum or checksum. Most of the ports save me their messages, but tell me when something goes wrong. It does not work with every port, but I would like it if bento builds with -s by default, that will save us the repeated option reminders on a lot of ports. Redefining ECHO_MSG is definetively bad, because it kills every error message. My point is: What is broken with the current usage? Why fix something that is not broken?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F64D002.5010605>