| 1 |
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:18:40 +0000, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> But then if there were say 5 ebuilds running in parallel and all their |
| 4 |
> output printed in the same terminal, it would be almightily difficult |
| 5 |
> to untangle the spaghetti that may show up in an error? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Which is why setting -j >1 sets wh |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
-- |
| 10 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem. |
| 13 |
at is now the quiet-build option, so you only get the progress |
| 14 |
information from portage, not from gcc. If one of your ebuilds fails, the |
| 15 |
gcc output is displayed at the end. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I've got a mind like a... a... what's that thing called? |
Archives