| 1 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:19:37 +0100 |
| 2 |
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:59:23 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Eldad Zack <eldad@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
<snip> |
| 7 |
> > ("applying x.patch ..."/"libtoolizing") or maybe just |
| 8 |
> > converting the patching/libtoolizing function to use something |
| 9 |
> > like "enolog". That would require MUCH less manual labor |
| 10 |
> > around the tree if this is accepted... |
| 11 |
<snip> |
| 12 |
> providing a different command for less important messages that |
| 13 |
> only worth being lost with the rest of the compilation output. |
| 14 |
> This way, updating eclasses would be enough to get pretty clean |
| 15 |
> logs i think. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Oops, i'm basically saying exactly the same as you did. I replied |
| 19 |
to your post after reading Ciaran's one only, sorry about that :/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
TGL. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives