| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:17 PM Ionen Wolkens <ionen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 01:08:52PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:56 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Ionen Wolkens wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > >> - ebegin " python_check_deps" |
| 8 |
> > > >> - python_check_deps |
| 9 |
> > > >> - eend ${?} |
| 10 |
> > > >> + einfo " python_check_deps" |
| 11 |
> > > >> + if python_check_deps; then |
| 12 |
> > > >> + einfo " python_check_deps succeeded" |
| 13 |
> > > >> + else |
| 14 |
> > > >> + einfo " python_check_deps failed" |
| 15 |
> > > >> + fi |
| 16 |
> > > >> } |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > > I was about to go about merging this as suggested, but this masks the |
| 19 |
> > > > return value, and then things like this always succeed: |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > > if _python_run_check_deps "${impl}"; then |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > Maybe leave ebegin/eend in place then, which was invented precisely for |
| 24 |
> > > this use case? What's so bad about nesting it? |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > It leads to odd looking output. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=eba088af8f335c0adb386461e6df1267e24800e7 |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Isn't that a portage problem? I don't think stopping legitimate use |
| 32 |
> because portage displays messages weird is the right thing to do but |
| 33 |
> should rather improve how portage displays them in this situation. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What is a "good" way to display it? I don't really think you can make |
| 36 |
ebegin/eend look good when there are lines of output between them. |
Archives