| 1 |
Fabian Groffen schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions |
| 4 |
>> be reverted? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 |
| 7 |
>> hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the |
| 8 |
>> discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus |
| 9 |
>> about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like |
| 10 |
>> to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic |
| 11 |
>> in which case the consensus result should be implemented. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses, |
| 14 |
> right? Also known to some as the parallel build output. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform |
| 22 |
>> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in |
| 23 |
>> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty |
| 24 |
>> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> You suggest a news item here? Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to |
| 27 |
> print elog messages? (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If this does not get reverted and if it gets accepted to be the default, |
| 32 |
i would request a news item, when it goes into a stable version of |
| 33 |
portage, since a good amount of people wondered, why the portage output |
| 34 |
changed (default for --quiet-build was changed), why it was done and how |
| 35 |
they could change that behaviour. |
Archives