| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:15 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I think this should be reverted. It causes too much noise, and |
| 6 |
> > "solves" a problem only very rarely. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Now, how many lines of output does this typically produce, compared |
| 9 |
> to the total size of a typical build log? Especially with mgorny's |
| 10 |
> subsequent modification, which suppresses the output unless the patch |
| 11 |
> doesn't apply cleanly. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In most cases, I would be inclined to simply ignore the patch output |
| 14 |
since there's really no need for me to take any action on it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
On the other hand, it makes it more difficult to quickly identify the |
| 17 |
list of patches being applied if there is junk output in the middle of |
| 18 |
the list. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> It was also suggested that we add -F0 in EAPI 8, but that would break |
| 21 |
> the build in those cases that are producing extra output now. I don't |
| 22 |
> think that would be preferable. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I am opposed to including such a change in EAPI 8. It would make |
| 25 |
ebuild maintenance more difficult for everyone, and I don't think the |
| 26 |
potential benefit is worth it. |
Archives