[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass
From:       Michał_Górny <mgorny () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2016-02-17 11:20:35
Message-ID: 64578254-F40A-44CF-AD5F-49C28BFCBA8B () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 11:53:32 CET, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> napisał(a):
> Michał Górny posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:47:06 +0100 as excerpted:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill <rhill@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 "Justin Lecher (jlec)"
> > > > <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Don't mix echo with ewarn.
> > > > > Why?
> > > > Because they won't go through the same output channels.
> > > 
> > > That's kinda the point.  You want a blank (unstarred) space to
> separate
> > > out the "important" messages from the generic spew put out by the
> > > package manager/eclasses/build system that you have no control over.
> > 
> > This is not just that. Different output channels mean that:
> 
> > - There is no guarantee of correct output order! The empty lines may
> > move randomly over the text.
> 
> Good point!  (Of course the others are too, but this one could be 
> particularly damaging to the intended communication.)
> 
> > > If you have several different messages you want a blank space in
> > > between them so you can use e* to create whitespace within the
> message
> > > to avoid the wall of text syndrome while still making it clear where
> it
> > > begins and ends.
> 
> > > You're right that using echo means the whitespace doesn't get saved
> by
> > > the elog system.  A while back someone proposed we add espace for
> > > exactly this reason but IIRC they were laughed down, which is a
> shame.
> > 
> > So... to summarize your point. You shouldn't use the correct function
> > that is saved in elog which is primary way of getting info because
> you
> > find it more convenient to have empty non-'starred' lines that don't
> > actually get to elog and make elog a mess?
> > 
> > If you really don't like empty 'starred' lines (and I actually like
> them
> > since they make separation between packages cleaner), why not submit
> a
> > patch for Portage and make 'elog' with no arguments output log line
> > without a star? That's a trivial solution that doesn't require extra
> > functions for the sake of inventing elogspace, ewarnspace, ...
> 
> It is at least possible to use say blank ewarn between elog lines, or
> the 
> reverse, so while there's no totally blank separator, there's at least
> a 
> different color to the star on the starred-blank-line separator.
> 
> Similarly, if there's more than one "topic" to the messages, and
> they're 
> of different severity, the severities can be interspersed to get color 
> separation.
> 
> I believe I've seen both techniques used to good effect in a few
> packages 
> in the past, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

This is mixing channels again. Someone may decide to output warnings separately from \
elogs. Or not output elogs at all.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]