Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs? (was: Re: rfc: escape sequences in logs)

2013-09-05 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 04:54:46 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:38:40 +1200 as excerpted: I see. I have a few gvim instances also reading/writing to that terminal I didn't know about, interesting. Which brings up the privacy point.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-04 Thread Duncan
Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 03 Sep 2013 23:16:11 +0200 as excerpted: Currently the logs aren't search and grep compatible because you have no indication where the last error is and which process has output that Quite apart from the ansi-color discussion, I've had reasonable luck simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-04 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:25:14 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 03 Sep 2013 23:16:11 +0200 as excerpted: Currently the logs aren't search and grep compatible because you have no indication where the last error is and which process has output that

[gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs? (was: Re: rfc: escape sequences in logs)

2013-09-04 Thread Duncan
Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:38:40 +1200 as excerpted: I see. I have a few gvim instances also reading/writing to that terminal I didn't know about, interesting. Which brings up the privacy point. Anything getting this fancy and convoluted in terms of implementation is going to

[gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 03/09/2013 22:11, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:03:14 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:25:19AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:21:52 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 17:03:39 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: The solution is obvious - default to writing plain text to log files and give the user an option to enable escapes in the log if {s,}he

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Magnus Granberg
tisdag 03 september 2013 22.41.14 skrev Alan McKinnon: I *do* like colorized text on my terminal, but I do believe we ought to keep defaults sane - the minimum that could possibly work. Everything extra should be optional What about NOCOLOR=false in make.conf see man make.conf for more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: The solution is obvious - default to writing plain text to log files and give the user an option to enable escapes in the log if {s,}he chooses to have it. This does mean you can't use tricks with tee. Not sure it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 03/09/2013 23:00, Magnus Granberg wrote: tisdag 03 september 2013 22.41.14 skrev Alan McKinnon: I *do* like colorized text on my terminal, but I do believe we ought to keep defaults sane - the minimum that could possibly work. Everything extra should be optional What about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:41:14 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: escape sequences in logs (any kind of logs) are basically noise, they make search and grep hard to use. But then why not implement matters that actually make search and grep easier to use, see the new subject for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: How would you handle progress reporting with this? Something like 'capture one thousand lines of updated percentages and merge them with a magical pretty printer'? I don't see real gain compared to what we have now. There

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 03/09/2013 23:03, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: The solution is obvious - default to writing plain text to log files and give the user an option to enable escapes in the log if {s,}he chooses to have it. This does mean you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 23:22:21 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: So do what we've always done in Unix-land: leave the decision up to the user. Build logs can always be regenerated (run emerge again) if the ANSI sequences truly are vital whilst troubleshooting a specific log.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/09/2013 23:03, Rich Freeman wrote: It seems to me that the cleaner situation would be to capture information in the logs, and use a pretty-printer of some kind to make it look nice. Terminate output should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:17:49 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: How would you handle progress reporting with this? Something like 'capture one thousand lines of updated percentages and merge them with a magical

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:03:39 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Log files are about capturing information. Escapes are about the presentation of information - a reporting feature not unlike pagination/etc. It wouldn't make sense to embed page numbers in a log file - if they are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Can we have process names and stdout / stderr indication to more efficiently parse build logs?

2013-09-03 Thread Walter Dnes
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:44:45PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote +1 I am still not convinced we are experiencing an actual practical problem for the majority of the build logs that are attached; we've been doing this for years, why is it so suddenly considered a problem? As I pointed out in a