Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:43:08
Message-Id: 4EDB94E2.8090007@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13 by Fabian Groffen
Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions >> be reverted? >> >> The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 >> hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the >> discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus >> about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like >> to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic >> in which case the consensus result should be implemented. > > Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses, > right? Also known to some as the parallel build output.
Yes
> >> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? >> >> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform >> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in >> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty >> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour. > > You suggest a news item here? Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to > print elog messages? (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.) > >
If this does not get reverted and if it gets accepted to be the default, i would request a news item, when it goes into a stable version of portage, since a good amount of people wondered, why the portage output changed (default for --quiet-build was changed), why it was done and how they could change that behaviour.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies