Luke Mewburn <lukem@netbsd.org> wrote on Sat, 18 Oct 2003
at 15:33:59 +0000 in <20031018153359.4F3B22DA1D@cvs.netbsd.org>:

> Subject: CVS commit: src/share/mk
> To: source-changes@NetBSD.org
...
> Module Name:	src
> Committed By:	lukem
> Date:		Sat Oct 18 15:33:59 UTC 2003
> 
> Modified Files:
> 	src/share/mk: bsd.README bsd.dep.mk bsd.files.mk bsd.hostlib.mk
> 	    bsd.hostprog.mk bsd.info.mk bsd.lib.mk bsd.man.mk bsd.nls.mk
> 	    bsd.prog.mk bsd.sys.mk
> 
> Log Message:
> Implement MAKEVERBOSE to control how "verbose" the standard make(1) rules are.
> Supported values:
>     0	Minimal output ("quiet")
>     1	Describe what is occurring
>     2	Describe what is occurring and echo the actual command ("verbose")
> 	This is the default, and is equivalent to the previous behaviour.

I'm pretty disappointed you didn't see fit to address the concerns
I raised about the sense of this being backwards. Any particular
you reason you did not reply before your implementation? I would
have appreciated knowing how you were going to implement this before
you did it.

It seems odd to be defaulting to a verbosity level of 2, and giving
the user the option to decrement. Usually knobs give users the option
to increment.

--jhawk

Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:26:32 -0400
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
To: Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org>
Cc: tech-userlevel@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: changing the verbosity of make build
Message-ID: <20030901152632.GJ7118@multics.mit.edu>

While this looks neat, and makes plenty of sense for the NetBSD
build, it doesn't make sense for more "normal" use of make.

It's curious that one has to specify the highest level
of verbosity in order to get the current default behavior.

Do I misunderstand, or is this intended to apply only to make as run
from build.sh? It would seem to me that it would be better to
implement the make side of things with MAKEBRIEF=0 through
MAKEBRIEF=2, which MAKEBRIEF=0 being the current normal behavior. Then
build.sh could invoke make with MAKEBRIEF=2.

I feel like I might have missed something obvious here, though,
so I apologize if that's the case.

--jhawk