| 1 |
On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions |
| 3 |
> be reverted? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 |
| 6 |
> hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the |
| 7 |
> discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus |
| 8 |
> about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like |
| 9 |
> to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic |
| 10 |
> in which case the consensus result should be implemented. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses, |
| 13 |
right? Also known to some as the parallel build output. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform |
| 18 |
> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in |
| 19 |
> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty |
| 20 |
> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You suggest a news item here? Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to |
| 23 |
print elog messages? (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 28 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives