On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:08:10 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:24:12 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
> > hasufell schrieb:
> > > When I sum that up again...
> > > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for
> > > backtracing, resolving bugs, che
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:24:12 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> hasufell schrieb:
> > When I sum that up again...
> > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for
> > backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have
> > been respected
> > - no need to
hasufell schrieb:
> When I sum that up again...
> - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for
> backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have been
> respected
> - no need to tell the user to recompile with
> EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar ju
On 08/04/2012 09:03 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
> FFS, do not spam base-system yet again with stuff that's in the
> process of being discussed still. Additionally, this is something that
> should be fixed on the EAPI/eclass level and NOT per package. Putting
> EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules"
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing
>>> verbose build log
On 03/08/2012 16:18, hasufell wrote:
> So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual?
>
> Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then?
Please do. QA will back the request for verbose logs by default.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell
> wrote:
>
>> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing
>> verbose build log for that which was approved:
>> http://archives.gentoo.org
On 08/01/2012 11:27 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build
>>
>
> ++
>
> If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the
> harm in spamming it with 100k? I rea
+1 for verbosity
Il giorno 01/ago/2012 13:21, "hasufell" ha scritto:
>
> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing verbose
> build log for that which was approved:
>
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml
>
> Also we have bug https://
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing
> verbose build log for that which was approved:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml
>
> Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/sho
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote:
> - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build
>
++
If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the
harm in spamming it with 100k? I realize the odd package has a fairly
quiet build system, but
We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing verbose
build log for that which was approved:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml
Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id
12 matches
Mail list logo
