On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 08:29:03PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> "make test" always produces TEST_LOGFILE (default is ${WRKDIR}/test.log)
> which is really handy for analysing failures and sharing them here on
> ports@.
>
> Diff below implements BUILD_LOGFILE so "make build" behaves the same;
> sometimes builds fail late and/or relevant output has fallen of my
> teminal's scrollback history.
>
> File descriptor handling is finicky and the build target differs from
> the test one, but for devel/coccinelle I just got a build.log as
> expected.
>
> Do others consider this useful? If so, I can handle the other case for
> ports with an explicit do-build target as well, bsd.port.mk(5)
> documentation follows if this goes in.
>
> Any potential issues with the build target I am not aware of that
> prevents doing so?
>
> FAKE_LOGFILE could be a thing as well; generally, I don't think it
> hurts to log stuff by default.
Definitely not a fan...
I hate squishing pipes in there....
TEST is okay because dpb doesn't handle it so far.
I would hate hate hate to see delayed outputs from other parts
If you want logs while building manually, well, I did superscript and
portslogger a while back
I consider the current situation wrt TESTS to be the lesser of two evils
