On 08/06/2012 12:24 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> On 07/23/2012 01:26 PM, Jack Kelly wrote:
>>> I think the way to do this would be as an improvement to make batch
>>> mode more palatable in general. I think an environment variable or a
>>>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 01:26 PM, Jack Kelly wrote:
>> I think the way to do this would be as an improvement to make batch
>> mode more palatable in general. I think an environment variable or a
>> change to default behaviour is the least-potentia
On 07/23/2012 01:26 PM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> Overall, I think the correct action is to set aside this silent-rules
> wild-goose-chase.
>
Glad we agree. And there's no need to hurry anyway, since Automake 1.13
is not going to be release soon (it will take at least two more months,
even in the most o
Overall, I think the correct action is to set aside this silent-rules
wild-goose-chase.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 10:29 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini
>> wrote:
>>> Maybe we could try to write to the Ema
On 07/23/2012 10:29 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> Maybe we could try to write to the Emacs list for help at this point...
>
> I wrote the emacs list, and they pointed me to the NOMESSAGE argument
> for (load). Unfortunately the rabbit hole
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> Maybe we could try to write to the Emacs list for help at this point...
I wrote the emacs list, and they pointed me to the NOMESSAGE argument
for (load). Unfortunately the rabbit hole goes deeper...
Emacs defines a variable, site-run-fi
On 07/17/2012 07:05 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> At least we should find a way to silence all messages that are not
>> real warnings or errors... Otherwise, adding silent rules support
>> would just be pointless.
>
> I have been asking ab
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> At least we should find a way to silence all messages that are not
> real warnings or errors... Otherwise, adding silent rules support
> would just be pointless.
I have been asking about this on SO, and there has been a little
progress
On 07/15/2012 01:17 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
>
>>> I want to generate some discussion first. I have the following
>>> concerns:
>>>
>>> 1. I would like to add silent-rules support,
>>
>> Me too, but since the lack of it wouldn't be a regression, that issue
>> can be tackled later.
>>
>>> but it's not
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 02:18 PM, Jack Kelly wrote:
>> I had a crack at refactoring the elisp compilation, getting rid of
>> elisp-comp and compiling files via a suffix rule. Patch is attached.
>>
>> I am not submitting this for inclusion yet,
> St
On 07/14/2012 02:18 PM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> Hi automakers,
>
Hi Jack, thank you very much for the patch.
> I had a crack at refactoring the elisp compilation, getting rid of
> elisp-comp and compiling files via a suffix rule. Patch is attached.
>
> I am not submitting this for inclusion yet,
>
St
Hi automakers,
I had a crack at refactoring the elisp compilation, getting rid of
elisp-comp and compiling files via a suffix rule. Patch is attached.
I am not submitting this for inclusion yet, I want to generate some
discussion first. I have the following concerns:
1. I would like to add silen
12 matches
Mail list logo
