Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: escape sequences in logs)

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2013-09-04, o godz. 11:24:22
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> napisał(a):

> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:17:11 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 18:57:12
> > "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:15:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
> > >
> > > > That is not what this is about, this is about having escape
> > > > sequences in build logs obtained from Bugzilla; because, they aid
> > > > in skimming through logs (until we implement the feature I asked
> > > > for in subject).
> > >
> > >   "The road to binary syslog files is paved with good intentions",
> > > or something like that.  Question... why does it have to be escape
> > > sequences?  Can't it be readable plain text?  E.g. something like...
> > >
> > > //STDERR.OUT.START
> > > foo
> > > bar
> > > blah blah blah
> > > //STDERR.OUT.END
> > >
> > >   This would be easy to grep and/or parse in bash.
> >
> > Especially if one is interspersed with the other. I suggest trying
> > first, then suggesting it to others.
>
> Definitely do not want them on their own line; instead something like
>
>     OUT:make:1000: ...
>     ERR:gcc:1001: ...
>     ERR:gcc:1001: ...
>     ERR:gcc:1001: ...
>     ERR:gcc:1001: ...
>     ERR:make:1000: *** [...] Error 1
>     ERR:make:1000: make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
> If you then grep the last non-make and non-portage STDERR, you simply
> get just the gcc lines you actually want. From there you can grep the
> lines around it for context.

And how are you going to implement this? I doubt that fd/vt input has
any sort of 'writing process id' indicator.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny