| 1 |
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 22:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:08:06 +0100 Alexander Gretencord <arutha@×××.de> |
| 3 |
> 3. You *really* don't want every einfo logged. Trust me, I already do |
| 4 |
> this, and it's messy. einfo wasn't designed to be logged, it was |
| 5 |
> designed to display a message to the user during a build. It'd be a heck |
| 6 |
> of a lot easier to go through and convert those few critical messages to |
| 7 |
> use a function like 'elog' or somesuch. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm all for this (I originally called it "enotice"), but the idea was shot |
| 10 |
done due to the fact that it would take alot of ebuild patching around. |
| 11 |
And regarding hairy einfos: a possible workaround could be filtering all the |
| 12 |
standard stuff ("applying x.patch ..."/"libtoolizing") or maybe just |
| 13 |
converting the patching/libtoolizing function to use something like "enolog". |
| 14 |
That would require MUCH less manual labor around the tree if this is |
| 15 |
accepted... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Eldad Zack <eldad@g.o> |
| 21 |
Key/Fingerprint at pgp.mit.edu, ID 0x96EA0A93 |
Archives