Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:23:49
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13 by Thomas Sachau
On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions > be reverted? > > The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 > hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the > discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus > about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like > to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic > in which case the consensus result should be implemented.
Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses, right? Also known to some as the parallel build output.
> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? > > If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform > users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in > mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty > easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.
You suggest a news item here? Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to print elog messages? (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.) -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature