Pandu Poluan wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011 6:00 PM, "Neil Bothwick" <n...@digimed.co.uk
<mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:26:12 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> > > Not only did I mean to finish it, I thought I had. Using
--jobs>1 sets
> > > the quiet-build flag
> >
> > It also sets it if you don't use more than 1 job. As another poster
> > (Hinnerk) already mentioned, the only way to get the old behavior back
> > is to use the "--quiet-build=n" option.
>
> What I said in the text that disappeared from the original post was that
> --jobs has always hidden the gcc output, long before the quiet-build
> option appeared. The new option only makes emerge behave the same when
> -jobs is not set or set to 1.
>
Indeed, that change gave me a 'wtf moment' for awhile. I used --jobs,
and the one time I purposefully emerge using single job to debug a
failure... the output is still MIA. Luckily it wasn't an emergency so
I still had the mind to do 'man emerge'.
At the very least, such changes that potentially produce a wtf moment
should be in the news. I mean, --as-needed has been in the news for
quite some time; --quiet-build should also get its own news dispatch.
Rgds,
There will be a news item IF it stays with the current setting. The
news item will appear when it goes stable tho. According to recent
posts, it appears the council is going to discuss this and decide if it
should be reverted or not.
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!
Miss the compile output? Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
