| 1 |
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 19:52, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> I meant the nice little einfo, ewarn, and error stuff that portage spits |
| 3 |
> out that we insert into the ebuilds. Nobody expects you to read the |
| 4 |
> ebuild itself. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
As already said: as it stands now, it is easier for me to just look at the |
| 7 |
ebuild itself, than at the ewarn/eerror/einfo stuff, except for the last |
| 8 |
merged build. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> You "simply can't be bothered" so that means we should all jump to not |
| 11 |
> only help, but encourage your laziness and apathy? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> While I understand everyone's need to have their hand held every second |
| 16 |
> of the day by the whole of Gentoo |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That sadly seems to be the attitude of many developers, although most people, |
| 19 |
including me, don't want their hands held. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> it really is not *our* fault when *you* do actions that prevent you from |
| 22 |
> reading the messages that we do give you. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well how about seeing it this way: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It really is not *our* fault, when *you* create a system where we have to |
| 27 |
stare at the screen for a long time to read messages given to us by you. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> You mean like piping the output of emerge to mail or sendmail? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No, I only need the ewarn/einfo/eerror messages, not all the output. Think of |
| 32 |
all the output for an X build ... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> or how about redirecting the output to a file? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Same here, All I'm interested in are the messages, not the compilation stuff. |
| 37 |
That would only be necessary if a build fails. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> I mean, surely that is so hard to do that we need to force this action upon |
| 40 |
> everyone, right? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
As already said, just presenting all ewarn/einfo/eerror messages at the end of |
| 43 |
a build would suffice, piping that to a file could very well be optional. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> I have a simple solution for this. Do it how you want... you don't need us |
| 46 |
> to do it for you. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
As said, have a look at the bug mentioned in the other msg, someone did it, |
| 49 |
just no gentoo developer seems to want to integrate the functionality that |
| 50 |
the community is ready to provide. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> If you are blindly upgrading packages *knowing* that there could be |
| 53 |
> changes in those packages that would affect you and you do nothing to |
| 54 |
> even verify that nothing will adversely affect your setup, then no |
| 55 |
> amount of hand-holding will help you. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I don't do that. I do read the ebuilds to see if there are ewarns in |
| 58 |
there/save the output to scan that file for ewarns. The whole matter is just |
| 59 |
about how reading the messages can be made easier. Software is here to help |
| 60 |
us do our jobs, not to make it harder. And for a great distribution like |
| 61 |
gentoo, why not integrate such a feature into the mainline portage instead of |
| 62 |
having everyone that wants it, patch their portage with each new version? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> Now, with that being said, I will *gladly* add this support to portage |
| 65 |
> just as soon as somebody decides to start paying me a salary equivalent |
| 66 |
> to my current one so I can hack on Gentoo all day long just to add a |
| 67 |
> bunch of little "hold my hand and wipe my ass for me" features rather |
| 68 |
> than working to add support for new devices and applications. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
The feature was provided by the community a long time ago. Just have a look at |
| 71 |
the bugreport. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Alex |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
-- |
| 77 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives