On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52:41AM +0200, lee wrote: > > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote: > > > > Fellow, I'm done with you, really. > > > > You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured > > memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently > > ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list. > > > > Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you > > submitting patches though. > > You ran out of arguments and remain at insisting that the problem is > known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated while rejecting > suggestions but asking for patches. So I have no reason to think that > patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, and now even if you > came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is > a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), I wouldn't > waste my time with it. Congratulations. >
Someone (I can't remember who, probably Rich Freeman or some other dev) described a problem with the general process of fixing the portage output a while ago. I believe the steps went something like this: 1. Think the portage output sucks 2. Learn what the output means 3. Lose all motivation to improve the output because it is no longer necessary for you The portage output is not as good as it could be, but everyone with the knowledge to fix it doesn't because they neither care (because they understand it) *nor* are they being paid. In my opinion, the portage output is not that bad, in the same way that gcc's error messages are not that bad. They can be difficult to get used to and some of them are absolutely ridiculous, but after using gcc for a while they almost always make sense and are precise. Alec
