Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Per-package emerge log behaviour

[Roman Gaufman]

I also dont like how the log file for 1 emerge is split into 2 logfiles:
1898-python-2.3.4.log  (pre/during)
1899-python-2.3.4.log  (post)

I think even a timestamp without having 2 logfiles is better:
1098387780-python-2.3.4.log

I really think splitting the output to 2 logs isnt that great either.
If anything, then all notices, warnings and failures should go to 1
log file with another file simply logging everything for debug
purposes.

But in anycase there's a shell script: 'portlog-info' --
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=67849 to make something
useful out of the mess in portlog-dir ;)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:30:11 +0200 (MEST), Igor V. Rafienko
<igorr@×××××××.no> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently I have noticed that one can tell portage to produce per-package
> emerge logs (which is _very_ nice). However, after poking around a bit, it
> looks like the format of the individual logfiles is hammered. Maybe I am
> simply not looking in the right places, but I was wondering whether it
> would be possible to offer some formatting options.
>
> E.g. I would like such per-package logfiles to include a timestamp (in a
> human-friendly format, say, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM), and the sorting[1] to occur
> first by date, then by package and then some sort of unique identifier[2]
> to break off the ties. This way it would be pretty easy to look for
> interesting messages from a bulk of emerges from a specific timepoint.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> TIA,
>
> ivr
> [1] ... as seen with ls. The easiest way would be to format the file names
>     :)
> [2] I presume that:
>
> mysettings["LOG_COUNTER"]=str(db[myroot]["vartree"].dbapi.get_counter_tick_core("/"))
>
> ... does just that -- creates a unique identifier for the logs.
> --
> VB, by comparison, treats you like a secretary pecking on MS Office.
>                       -- Phlip, on c.l.c++
>
> --
> gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list