Dave Miner wrote: > Glenn Lagasse wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >> * Jan Damborsky (Jan.Damborsky at Sun.COM) wrote: >> >>> Hi Karen, Glenn, >>> >>> confirming that changeset 635 is the culprit :-) >>> >>> No doubt that 'pkg' prefix in DC log is confusing and has to be >>> removed. >>> WRT having the command logged, I would like to check if it is in >>> general >>> something which could be acceptable in DC log. >>> I am asking, since it is useful source of information in installer case >>> and if something fails, there is an easy way to exactly reproduce >>> the set >>> of steps which led to the failure. >>> >>> Thinking about solution, we could >>> >>> [1] Repair the prefix >>> [2] Avoid logging the command in DC case >>> [3] Remove logging the command completely from >>> exec_cmd_outputs_to_log() >>> >>> Please let me know what you think. >> >> I like option 1 but I think we could go further. Some of the log >> messages that are now showing up in the DC detailed log don't seem to be >> terribly useful imho. Specifically the messages that list what >> finalizer script is being called and what arguments it was passed. >> These messages really clutter up the detailed log and makes reading it >> pretty difficult. Is it possible to suppress these types of messages >> unless specifically asked for (via some mechanism)? >> >> My .02. >> > > This discussion leads me to believe that we need to consider whether > having two logs is still the right choice, and what they might > contain. Perhaps someone would like to take a crack at that?
Taking a quick look at log files, it seems that the simple one contains the same messages which are displayed to the console - no additional information is there. If this is the case, then I think we could consider to remove it, since it seems redundant, as if desired, the same thing could be accomplished by using other standard mechanisms (console redirection, tee(1)). Detailed log is superset of simple one and contains more information about the build, e.g. messages emitted by pkg(1). Jan
