1 |
Lares Moreau wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>>>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc |
8 |
>>>>or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have |
9 |
>>>>ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would |
10 |
>>>>only happen with FEATURES="stricter". This is what I currently do in my |
11 |
>>>>bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper |
12 |
>>>>functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>>Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about |
17 |
>>making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) |
18 |
>>file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that |
19 |
>>users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but |
20 |
>>developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output |
21 |
>>a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know |
22 |
>>what you are doing? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' |
26 |
> user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for |
27 |
> the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in |
28 |
> PORTLOG_DIR? |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user. |
32 |
|
33 |
Regards, |
34 |
Petteri |