Am 03.06.26 um 11:04 schrieb Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget:
> From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
> 
> The split install/uninstall recipes embed "echo" calls that fire
> even under "make -s", so install still prints "DEST /path" and
> "INSTALL 644 about.tcl" banners. The existing "-s" block only
> clears QUIET_GEN.

Good catch.

> Wrap the whole "ifndef V" block in the canonical "-s" guard from
> shared.mak, and drop the now-redundant narrow block.

Can we please mention shared.mak in a way that doesn't assume that this
patch was made in the Git repository?

> +ifneq ($(findstring s,$(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS))),s)
>  ifndef V
>  	QUIET          = @
>  	QUIET_GEN      = $(QUIET)echo '   ' GEN '$@' &&
> @@ -89,6 +90,7 @@ ifndef V
>  	REMOVE_F0 = dst=
>  	REMOVE_F1 = && echo '   ' REMOVE `basename "$$dst"` && $(RM_RF) "$$dst"
>  endif
> +endif

> -ifeq ($(findstring $(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS)),s),s)

I would have expected that the old and the new condition expressions
only differ in the ifeq vs. ifneq, but they are different in more than
that. Assuming that the new expression is correct, was the old one
incorrect?

> -QUIET_GEN =
> -endif
-- Hannes

> Can we please mention shared.mak in a way that doesn't assume that this
> patch was made in the Git repository?

Good point!

> > +ifneq ($(findstring s,$(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS))),s)
> >  ifndef V
> >       QUIET          = @
> >       QUIET_GEN      = $(QUIET)echo '   ' GEN '$@' &&
> > @@ -89,6 +90,7 @@ ifndef V
> >       REMOVE_F0 = dst=
> >       REMOVE_F1 = && echo '   ' REMOVE `basename "$$dst"` && $(RM_RF) "$$dst"
> >  endif
> > +endif
>
> > -ifeq ($(findstring $(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS)),s),s)
>
> I would have expected that the old and the new condition expressions
> only differ in the ifeq vs. ifneq, but they are different in more than
> that. Assuming that the new expression is correct, was the old one
> incorrect?

Yeah, the old format doesn't seem to work when I use that with ifneq.
So I took this other format that is also used twice in shared.mak
(lines 40 and 46).


Harald

Am 03.06.26 um 20:13 schrieb Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget:
> From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
> 
> Several install and uninstall recipes embed "echo" calls that fire as
> part of the recipe itself, so the install banners (DEST, INSTALL,
> LINK, REMOVE) were visible whenever the variables expand non-empty.
> 
> Guard the whole "ifndef V" block on "-s" so the loud variants are
> selected only when "-s" is absent and V=1 is unset.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harald Nordgren <harald.nordgren@kostdoktorn.se>
> ---
>     git-gui: silence install recipes under "make -s"
>     
>      * Clarified commit message.

I appreciate that you made it more suitable to be used outside of the
Git repository, but it still does not explain why the change from ifeq
to ifneq is not sufficient to negate the condition.

In fact, the old version of the condition never worked as intended. The
parameters of findstring are in the order needle,haystack. The arguments
are -,s for normal `make` and -s,s for `make -s`. In no case is the
needle found in the haystack. The new version is correct. This is worth
to be mentioned.

> +ifneq ($(findstring s,$(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS))),s)

> -ifeq ($(findstring $(firstword -$(MAKEFLAGS)),s),s)
-- Hannes

Am 04.06.26 um 08:48 schrieb Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget:
> From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
> 
> Several install and uninstall recipes embed "echo" calls that fire as
> part of the recipe itself, so the install banners (DEST, INSTALL,
> LINK, REMOVE) were visible whenever the variables expand non-empty.
> 
> Guard the whole "ifndef V" block on "-s" so the loud variants are
> selected only when "-s" is absent and V=1 is unset. The existing
> "-s" check also had its findstring arguments in the wrong order
> (needle "-s" never fit in haystack "s"), so swap them while moving
> the check to wrap the block.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harald Nordgren <harald.nordgren@kostdoktorn.se>

The new text looks good. However, the email addresses of author and
signer-off are different. They should be the same. I notice that you use
the gmail address in both places in other patch submissions, so I can
use that if you agree (and you don't need to send another round).

-- Hannes

Thanks, queued.

-- Hannes