From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:14:57 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Makefile: Remove KBUILD_VERBOSE and quiet In-Reply-To: <003996441bb228c23d8e79202370f8d1@openmailbox.org> References: <1441658846-5786-1-git-send-email-cedric.marie@openmailbox.org> <55EDFE3E.8030205@mind.be> <55EED4CA.3040304@mind.be> <0cef4a73d23345bbaf2f88905d0ed82f@openmailbox.org> <55EEE3F1.3000508@mind.be> <003996441bb228c23d8e79202370f8d1@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <55F2E1E1.8090701@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 11-09-15 09:52, C?dric Marie wrote: > Hi, > > I've just realized that this patch is breaking linux and busybox verbose mode. > > Exporting KBUILD_VERBOSE makes it available for linux and busybox makefile. This > makefile sets KBUILD_VERBOSE if V is set in the command line, but it also uses > KBUILD_VERBOSE if exported by the shell. > > In fact it seems that the original idea was to export all variables that could > be understood by different build systems: > - KBUILD_VERBOSE for linux and busybox > - VERBOSE for CMake packages. > > So, if we still want to handle verbosity in infrastructures (and some packages > that use generic infrastructure) - and I think we should: > I think the right way to forward verbose mode to linux and busybox is to add V=1 > in linux.mk and busybox.mk. I'm not so sure of that. The KBUILD_VERBOSE approach worked well, there wasn't really a problem with it. The problem was with VERBOSE, which is interpreted differently by cmake. Removing KBUILD_VERBOSE and quiet was just because (quoting your commit message): "KBUILD_VERBOSE and quiet variables are set and exported, but they are not used. We can safely remove them." The current way (exporting KBUILD_VERBOSE) is in fact quite elegant: it's just a couple of lines of code, and it works for any package based on Kbuild. Like uClibc, barebox, who knows, maybe they also use KBUILD_VERBOSE? This way is much easier than handling it for every package separately. So I think the approach should be: - remove quiet - add an explanation about why KBUILD_VERBOSE is useful - use VERBOSE but in a different way. and in fact, since we already have KBUILD_VERBOSE, maybe VERBOSE can just be dropped? (internally, it's still used for cmake.) > > As a consequence, I believe it is not possible to split my patch into different > steps. > The patch must: > - remove quiet > - remove KBUILD_VERBOSE > - use VERBOSE but in a different way (not exported), as already described > - handle VERBOSE in pkg-cmake.mk, pkg-autotools.mk, linux.mk, busybox.mk, and > qt.mk (this one is possibly already correct). > > If you agree, I will provide a single patch that will cancel the two previous > ones (I will add patch version and log this time). The reason for splitting was that the first one would be uncontroversial - but it clearly isn't, so I'm OK with keeping them merged. Thanks for keeping this up! Regards, Arnout > > Regards, > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout dot vandecappelle at essensium dot com Senior Embedded Software Architect . . . . . . +32-478-010353 (mobile) Essensium, Mind division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium . . . . . BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF