| 1 |
Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@××××××××××××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52:41AM +0200, lee wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> > On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote: |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > Fellow, I'm done with you, really. |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured |
| 12 |
>> > memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently |
| 13 |
>> > ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list. |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> > Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you |
| 16 |
>> > submitting patches though. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> You ran out of arguments and remain at insisting that the problem is |
| 19 |
>> known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated while rejecting |
| 20 |
>> suggestions but asking for patches. So I have no reason to think that |
| 21 |
>> patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, and now even if you |
| 22 |
>> came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is |
| 23 |
>> a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), I wouldn't |
| 24 |
>> waste my time with it. Congratulations. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Someone (I can't remember who, probably Rich Freeman or some other dev) |
| 28 |
> described a problem with the general process of fixing the portage |
| 29 |
> output a while ago. I believe the steps went something like this: |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> 1. Think the portage output sucks |
| 32 |
> 2. Learn what the output means |
| 33 |
> 3. Lose all motivation to improve the output because it is no longer |
| 34 |
> necessary for you |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
There seems to be a fourth step when it comes to portage: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
4. Discourage everyone who has ideas for improvements and might be |
| 40 |
willing to implement them from actually doing so by telling them that |
| 41 |
they are idiots and should shut up --- and when they indicate that |
| 42 |
they are willing to do just that, complain about that they do just |
| 43 |
that. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> The portage output is not as good as it could be, but everyone with the |
| 47 |
> knowledge to fix it doesn't because they neither care (because they |
| 48 |
> understand it) *nor* are they being paid. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> In my opinion, the portage output is not that bad, in the same way that |
| 51 |
> gcc's error messages are not that bad. They can be difficult to get used |
| 52 |
> to and some of them are absolutely ridiculous, but after using gcc for a |
| 53 |
> while they almost always make sense and are precise. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
I find the error messages from gcc are pretty good. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons |
| 60 |
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. |
Archives