[Buildroot] Silencing the build

[Fabio Porcedda]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
> Fabio, All,
>
> On 2014-07-18 10:18 +0200, Fabio Porcedda spake thusly:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
>> > Thomas, All,
>> >
>> > On 2014-07-17 20:31 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:40:46 +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>> >>

<snip>

>> >> I guess we need to decide whether having a fully silent build in "make
>> >> -s" is a goal we should aim at. It seems like a good idea to me, but I
>> >> don't have a really strong opinion about this.
>> >>
>> >> What do others think about this?
>> >
>> > Here's what I use for a silent build:
>> >
>> >     brmake() {
>> >         make "${@}" \
>> >         |sed -r -e '/^.{4}>>>[[:space:]]+(.*).{5}$/!d; s//\1/;'
>> >     }
>> >
>> > Then calling 'brmake' instead of 'make', will get you only the >>> lines.
>>
>> Nice, so i'm not the only one who likes a silent build ;-)
>
> Well, I still believe the build should be verbose by default, otherwise
> we would miss a lot of important information on bug reports. The problem
> is where to store the build.log in case of a silent build, so the user
> can provide it.

I don't know a way to store the full log (stdout & stderr) and view a
filtered version of stdout & the unfiltered stderr, maybe you have an
idea?

> I think the best we can do is document a simple solution (like my little
> function above, for example).

Yes, i think it's a good idea.

I personally prefer using a line like this:
 make | grep --color=never ">>> "
to be able to distinguish more easily stdoud messages from stderr messages.

Nevertheless, I still would like that this patch will be applied because:
- using "make -s" is still simpler that using some "make | sed
........", many tools have a quiet flag for this reason.
- is a work already done.
- does not change the usual behavior.
- it's just adds 12 line of code .

>> I think that a downside of this method is that even the stderr is
>> filtered as well so messages like warning or errors are filtered as
>> well.
>
> No, because only stdout is filtered, there's no redirection of stderr.

Good point, you are right.

Regards
-- 
Fabio Porcedda