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? > > Dave > Background on why we have the 2 logs. When we designed logging for DC, we believe that having the simple log, which contains a subset of the messages from the detail log will allow users to more easily observe the progress of the build and identify any errors that comes up. The messages that got displayed on the terminal of a DC run are the same ones that got captured in the simple log. This is believed to be useful for cases where DC runs are executed from headless systems where capturing the output from a terminal is not easy.
From implementation point of view, Python logging allows us to have all the logs we do today for almost zero cost. It's just a matter of adding the couple of lines to indicate where is the location of the log file, and what level of message we want to capture. Given the above, I feel that having the 2 log files is useful. All output from a DC run must be captured, so, we must have the detail log, which contains a lot of information. The simple log is useful for providing a summary, for those that don't need to worry about the details. In regards to printing out the exact command being executed, I feel that's very useful information to be captured. When I debug, I often have to change the logging function so the the command gets printed. So, I support logging the command in the detail log only. That will add a lot of output to the detail log for sure, perhaps additional blank lines in the file will help with making it easier to read? For example, have blank lines printed in front of the command being executed. That way, each command, and the output from it will form it's own block in the log file, which should help with readability. Thanks, --Karen
