[U-Boot-Users] RFC: Concise Build Output

[Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>]

Dear Jon,

in message <E1JHnoD-0004we-IN@jdl.com> you wrote:
> 
> In the spirit of the Linux and Git build systems,
> I have a modified U-Boot build system that supports
> a much more concise output!  One of the primary
> motivations for this style of output is that it
> will very readily highlight build issues and problems
> as your build progresses.  The original, complete
> build output is obtainable by simply supplying "V=1"
> on the make invocation in exactly the same way as
> both Linux and Git do today.

Thanks for your efforts.  I  will  not  object  against  adding  such
changes,  but  - speaking strictly for myself only - I don't see much
of improvement from it. It doesn't help me in my daily work.

Usually I find myself in one of two situations: either I just want to
build U-Boot for a board and don't want to see any messages from  the
build  process  except  error messages - then I use "make -s"; or I'm
debugging the make process itself, and I want to see all commands  in
full detail, then I run plain "make".

Well, to be honest, usually I'm doing none of these. In  95%  of  all
cases  I  just  run  "MAKEALL boardname" as this gives me the best of
both solutions: a silent build process with only warnings and  errors
printed,  and if something goes wrong and needs further investigation
I still have the full build lon in the LOG/ directory, i. e. I  don't
have to re-run the make.


So my question is: which problem are you trying to solve that is  not
already solved by "make -s" or "MAKEALL"? I don't really see the need
for a solution between no output and full output. YMMV, of course.

Hope I didn't frustrate you - I still appreciate the effort.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"If God had wanted us to use the metric system, Jesus would have  had
10 apostles."