| 1 |
On Thursday 10 November 2011 22:23:57 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/10/2011 07:17 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 11/10/2011 06:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Thursday 10 November 2011 21:11:38 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> On 11/10/2011 05:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:39:11 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>>>> if you want quiet portage output, use something like --quiet when |
| 8 |
> >>>>> running emerge. the verbosity of the build output isn't really an |
| 9 |
> >>>>> issue imo. |
| 10 |
> >>>> |
| 11 |
> >>>> perhaps a more controversial question: should we make --quiet the |
| 12 |
> >>>> default |
| 13 |
> >>> |
| 14 |
> >>> I think --quiet-build would be a reasonable default, but --quiet |
| 15 |
> >>> suppresses various warning messages that I think need to be enabled by |
| 16 |
> >>> default for newbies. |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> WFM |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> would putting this as EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in profiles/base/make.defaults |
| 21 |
> >> be too hideous for people to swallow ? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Less than sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.43 will choke on that, it's an |
| 24 |
> > unrecognized option. So, we'd better just enable it by default for the |
| 25 |
> > next portage release. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Actually, it's been around since portage-2.1.7.5 (bug #291200). Still, |
| 28 |
> it's probably better not to set it in the profile. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
good point. we don't want to punish old portage users. let's enable it by |
| 31 |
default in portage itself then. just add `elog` output to the portage ebuild |
| 32 |
to inform users of the change ? or do we want a news item ? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
what's the flag to negate the default ? --no-quiet-build ? ;) |
| 35 |
-mike |
Archives