Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:06:57
Message-Id: 20050912130129.GC29046@nightcrawler
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion by Frank Schafer
1 On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
2 > Hi,
3 >
4 > I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
5 > I succeeded.
6 > I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
7 >
8 > For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:
9 >
10 > Remove the 4 digit number from the log file names.
11 They're relevant to portage stable; down the line it'll likely be
12 mtime based.
13 Right now that 4 digit number is an internal incrementing counter
14 that's tagged into the log file name.
15
16 > It is a good idea to have 2 files for each package. One with the output
17 > of make and one with the messages for the installer. Name the former
18 > package-version.log and the latter package-version.msg
19
20 Doesn't work that way, and what you're after (restating your
21 'installer' as enotice/ewarn/einfo) is elog, something that'll be in
22 the next major version.
23
24 You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have FEATURES="buildpkg"
25 on; effectively, portage build's the binpkg (log 1), then merges it
26 (log 2). This is inneficient though, since it builds up one $IMAGE
27 dir, binpkg's it, then dumps it to another dir and installs from that.
28
29 That's an old annoyance that should die a miserable death soon enough.
30 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion Frank Schafer <frank.schafer@×××××××××.cz>