Re: [gentoo-dev] Package notices

[Eldad Zack <eldad@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2948 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 17:15, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Saturday 04 September 2004 00:10, Eldad Zack wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 08:10, Nicholas Jones wrote:
> > > functions.sh (from baselayout) dependence needs to go away.
> > > All used functions need to be logged/rewritten to not use those
> > > functions, and instead maintain its own.
> >
> > I propose overriding einfo/... after sourcing functions.sh in ebuild.sh.
> No, they really really need to be new commands. A few examples of why:

<snip>

> This is all stuff that is meaningless if the build succeeds. As far as I know, 
> einfo and friends were not created for use in ebuilds and just began being 
> used as it was convenient at the time.

My original thought was just that. I wouldn't give a wetslap about some
of the einfo's but some of them are really important.
I tried per-ebuild logging, but it doesn't cut it (for me) - just too
much cruft. I guess I could grep-hack around it... anyway, notices would
limit the messages to only the ebuild (and not the entire process).

Someone said earlier (Thomas) - "Your solution would require patching
hundreds of ebuilds, just to avoid patching portage? Imho, this is a
very wrong approach."

And it has a good point to it - For users to benefit from this change,
all the ebuilds need to me fixed, changing einfo/ewarn/eerror to their
new equiv's.

> Secondly, overriding is not good either. If you are overriding, it must be 
> because the functions do different things. If they are doing different 
> things, why call them the same thing? 

Not different as such - they do almost the same thing, just that the new
functions has an additional side-effect of outputting to a notice file
(and without color, so it is logfile friendly)

> The code itself is okay, but what functions are required needs to be 
> discussed, IMO. Then explicit definitions of when each function is used needs 
> to be given and each ebuild/eclass updated to use them.

Well, what are the needs beyond logging? The functionality can be added
very simply to this function. Including mailing out and the likes - All
the ebuild writer do is exactly what they do now, pass a message out.

> If everyone really really disagrees, I guess you can just create one more 
> function for the meaningless "pretty" stuff that gets outputted by ebuilds 
> and eclasses and just convert those. However, be aware that you are adding 
> another burden of backward compatibility that will only slow down portage's 
> progress further.

That would be a very ugly hack (== something you shouldn't add to
portage) - It would like wrapping around portage and parsing the
per-ebuild logs... or did you mean something else?

BTW, anyone who want to test it can look for the ebuild.sh patch in my
page (http://dev.gentoo.org/~eldad/).

-- 

Eldad Zack <eldad@gentoo.org>
Key/Fingerprint at pgp.mit.edu, ID 0x96EA0A93

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]