Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 11:53:32 CET, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> napisał(a):
>Michał Górny posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:47:06 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill <rhill@g.o>
>wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 "Justin Lecher (jlec)"
>>> > <jlec@g.o> wrote:
>>> > > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>>> > > > Don't mix echo with ewarn.
>>> > > Why?
>>> > Because they won't go through the same output channels.
>>>
>>> That's kinda the point.  You want a blank (unstarred) space to
>separate
>>> out the "important" messages from the generic spew put out by the
>>> package manager/eclasses/build system that you have no control over.
>>
>> This is not just that. Different output channels mean that:
>
>> - There is no guarantee of correct output order! The empty lines may
>>   move randomly over the text.
>
>Good point!  (Of course the others are too, but this one could be
>particularly damaging to the intended communication.)
>
>>> If you have several different messages you want a blank space in
>>> between them so you can use e* to create whitespace within the
>message
>>> to avoid the wall of text syndrome while still making it clear where
>it
>>> begins and ends.
>
>>> You're right that using echo means the whitespace doesn't get saved
>by
>>> the elog system.  A while back someone proposed we add espace for
>>> exactly this reason but IIRC they were laughed down, which is a
>shame.
>>
>> So... to summarize your point. You shouldn't use the correct function
>> that is saved in elog which is primary way of getting info because
>you
>> find it more convenient to have empty non-'starred' lines that don't
>> actually get to elog and make elog a mess?
>>
>> If you really don't like empty 'starred' lines (and I actually like
>them
>> since they make separation between packages cleaner), why not submit
>a
>> patch for Portage and make 'elog' with no arguments output log line
>> without a star? That's a trivial solution that doesn't require extra
>> functions for the sake of inventing elogspace, ewarnspace, ...
>
>It is at least possible to use say blank ewarn between elog lines, or
>the
>reverse, so while there's no totally blank separator, there's at least
>a
>different color to the star on the starred-blank-line separator.
>
>Similarly, if there's more than one "topic" to the messages, and
>they're
>of different severity, the severities can be interspersed to get color
>separation.
>
>I believe I've seen both techniques used to good effect in a few
>packages
>in the past, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

This is mixing channels again. Someone may decide to output warnings separately from elogs. Or not output elogs at all.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)