| 1 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:59:23 +0200 |
| 2 |
Eldad Zack <eldad@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tuesday 16 November 2004 22:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:08:06 +0100 Alexander Gretencord |
| 6 |
> > <arutha@×××.de> 3. You *really* don't want every einfo logged. |
| 7 |
> > Trust me, I already do this, and it's messy. einfo wasn't |
| 8 |
> > designed to be logged, it was designed to display a message to |
| 9 |
> > the user during a build. It'd be a heck of a lot easier to go |
| 10 |
> > through and convert those few critical messages to use a |
| 11 |
> > function like 'elog' or somesuch. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm all for this (I originally called it "enotice"), but the |
| 14 |
> idea was shot done due to the fact that it would take alot of |
| 15 |
> ebuild patching around. And regarding hairy einfos: a possible |
| 16 |
> workaround could be filtering all the standard stuff ("applying |
| 17 |
> x.patch ..."/"libtoolizing") or maybe just converting the |
| 18 |
> patching/libtoolizing function to use something like "enolog". |
| 19 |
> That would require MUCH less manual labor around the tree if |
| 20 |
> this is accepted... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think that most einfos from ebuilds actually worth to be in |
| 23 |
logs. The useless ones are in general the ones from eclasses |
| 24 |
("applying patch foobar.diff", "updating scrollkeeper", etc.). |
| 25 |
What i had done in my bug #37491 patches was logging einfo, and |
| 26 |
providing a different command for less important messages that |
| 27 |
only worth being lost with the rest of the compilation output. |
| 28 |
This way, updating eclasses would be enough to get pretty clean |
| 29 |
logs i think. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
TGL. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives