Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:43:36 +0100:
Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:
Here is some feedback then. I liked it the way it was. When a
build fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to
see the output. Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to
why it failed or something I can google for.
If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.
That doesn't always go back far enough tho. I have on my new rig seen
the failure be as far back as a couple hundred lines.
Well, don't say that if problem is hundreds lines back you search it in
that output. I'd use for that purpose "less build.log" anyway.
If emerge puts it on the screen like it always has, I won't need to go
to any build.log. It will be there on the screen already since I have
history set to save everything. That just means this change is going
to cause users to do even more to find out what is broke. That could
lead to posts on the forums or mailing lists where people have a build
to fail and very little if any info since there is not much on the screen.
As I mentioned in another post. Users expect things to work like they
always have. That is my point. There is really no reason to change
this. It doesn't change what portage does under the hood at all. The
old way does help the user tho. It has been a while but I have had
compiles to freeze or loop. No output means it would sit there for a
good long while, possibly doing nothing.
Dale
:-) :-)
