Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:04:42
Message-Id: CAFWqQMS6BDcFS1DZnsQQ4t1XkJc-LiR8tHFKPFnAfWGh-FoFRA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy? by hasufell
1 On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
2 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
3 > Hash: SHA1
4 >
5 > On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
6 >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
7 >> wrote:
8 >>
9 >>> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing
10 >>> verbose build log for that which was approved:
11 >>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml
12 >>>
13 >>>
14 >>>
15 > Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and
16 >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497
17 >>>
18 >>> I opened a tracker
19 >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308
20 >>>
21 >>> Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote
22 >>> on that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332
23 >>
24 >> PMS doesn't have such a thing as a 'policy'. Gentoo can have one,
25 >> and I believe that should be discussed per Gentoo policy.
26 >>
27 >
28 > So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual?
29 >
30 > Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then?
31
32 FFS, do not spam base-system yet again with stuff that's in the
33 process of being discussed still. Additionally, this is something that
34 should be fixed on the EAPI/eclass level and NOT per package. Putting
35 EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" in EVERY package is epically
36 moronic. Make econf automatically use --disable-silent-rules.
37
38 --
39 Doug Goldstein

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy? hasufell <hasufell@g.o>