On Tuesday 01 February 2005 11:35 pm, John Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 16:03, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[On in reply to any one message in particular, so not quoting anyone.]
Probably the best way to do this is to provide a drop-in replacement
for make
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:48:02 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
While the wrapper could tell something about what it's doing, based on
the command-line, it can't tell you how many times gcc (for example)
will be invoked in the future. A wrapper for make won't be able to do
that either,
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 03:16 am, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:48:02 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
While the wrapper could tell something about what it's doing, based on
the command-line, it can't tell you how many times gcc (for example)
will
Am 2. Feb 2005 um 06:35 Uhr schrieb John Myers:
It would keep the connection to the master open, and would also have a
consistent PID (unlike a shell script, which, AFAIK, may not).
A shell script itself has a consistent PID. However, any command called
within a shell script is assigned a new
On Wed, February 2, 2005 1:24 am, Sebastian Flothow said:
Am 2. Feb 2005 um 06:35 Uhr schrieb John Myers:
It would keep the connection to the master open, and would also have a
consistent PID (unlike a shell script, which, AFAIK, may not).
A shell script itself has a consistent PID. However,
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:59 am, John Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 2, 2005 1:24 am, Sebastian Flothow said:
Am 2. Feb 2005 um 06:35 Uhr schrieb John Myers:
It would keep the connection to the master open, and would also have
a consistent PID (unlike a shell
On Wed, February 2, 2005 10:01 am, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. said:
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:59 am, John Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 2, 2005 1:24 am, Sebastian Flothow said:
Am 2. Feb 2005 um 06:35 Uhr schrieb John Myers:
It would keep the connection to the master
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 12:52 pm, John Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 2, 2005 10:01 am, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. said:
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:59 am, John Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 2, 2005 1:24 am, Sebastian Flothow said:
Am 2. Feb
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:31:51 -0800, John Myers wrote:
eprogress - a general-purpose hierarchical progress reporting system
It's a good idea, but you should choose a different name. there is already
a script called eprogress floating around the forums. It is a quick and
dirty, but useful
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:02, James Colannino wrote:
John Myers wrote:
[...]I do, however, really wish that I
could find out how far in this build I am.[...]
I would absolutely LOVE that ;)
Don't mean to be a party popper or anything, but maybe you can lift some
code from gentoolkit's
John Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled:
[snip to nuts and bolts]
eprogress - a general-purpose hierarchical progress reporting system
my vision of the architecture has three components:
1) eprogress progress providers (clients?) (perhaps through some sort of
libeprogressc). These are
eprogress - a general-purpose hierarchical progress reporting system
Oh, so you mean something like
http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Watch_emerge_progress but hacked into the
compiling subsystem?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 01:20, Neil Bothwick wrote:
It's a good idea, but you should choose a different name. there is already
a script called eprogress floating around the forums.
Darn. I just picked it to go along with the whole 'e-prefix' naming scheme.
But I will see what I can do.
A clarification:
I'm not talking about time estimation here. What I'm talking about is
having each provider provide a minimum of two pieces of data: the
number of subtasks it will run, and the number of subtasks which
have been completed.
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 02:47, Jason Cooper wrote:
John Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled:
A clarification:
I'm not talking about time estimation here. What I'm talking about is
having each provider provide a minimum of two pieces of data: the
number of subtasks it will run, and the number of subtasks which
have been completed.
So more
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:24:41 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
I'm not talking about time estimation here. What I'm talking about is
having each provider provide a minimum of two pieces of data: the
number of subtasks it will run, and the number of subtasks which
have been completed.
So more
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 10:24, Jason Cooper wrote:
John Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled:
A clarification:
I'm not talking about time estimation here. What I'm talking about is
having each provider provide a minimum of two pieces of data: the
number of subtasks it will run, and the
John Myers wrote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 01:20, Neil Bothwick wrote:
It's a good idea, but you should choose a different name. there is already
a script called eprogress floating around the forums.
Darn. I just picked it to go along with the whole 'e-prefix' naming scheme.
But I will
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:29:13 -0800, James Colannino wrote:
Maybe you could expand on the already existing codebase of eprogress and
then call it eprogress-enhanced ;)
There's plenty of room for expansion :)
$ wc -l /usr/local/bin/eprogress
19 /usr/local/bin/eprogress
--
Neil Bothwick
[On in reply to any one message in particular, so not quoting anyone.]
Probably the best way to do this is to provide a drop-in replacement for
make w/ an optional patch to emerge/ebuild. Make is really what decides
how many files will need to be compiled. (For many projects.)
Now that's not
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 16:03, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[On in reply to any one message in particular, so not quoting anyone.]
Probably the best way to do this is to provide a drop-in replacement for
make w/ an optional patch to emerge/ebuild.
Probably, but in the shorter term, a
I am looking for a way to make a contribution to Gentoo and open source in
general. So I'm thinking to myself, I'm a programmer, why don't I write
something? So here I am. I, however, want to get opinions from other Gentoo
users before I embark on this quest.
I'm not asking for volunteers or
John Myers wrote:
[...]I do, however, really wish that I
could find out how far in this build I am.[...]
I would absolutely LOVE that ;)
James
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
James Colannino wrote:
John Myers wrote:
[...]I do, however, really wish that I could find out how far in this
build I am.[...]
I would absolutely LOVE that ;)
James
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
DITTO! If I had the skill, I would love to help, but maybe I could help
with a website or
I suggest you join the gentoo-dev list and float that...
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 22:31 -0800, John Myers wrote:
I am looking for a way to make a contribution to Gentoo and open source in
general. So I'm thinking to myself, I'm a programmer, why don't I write
something? So here I am. I,
25 matches
Mail list logo
