[gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion

[gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion

[Frank Schafer]

Hi,

I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
I succeeded.
I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.

For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:

Remove the 4 digit number from the log file names.

It is a good idea to have 2 files for each package. One with the output
of make and one with the messages for the installer. Name the former
package-version.log and the latter package-version.msg

This makes it easier to search for a single package in an alphabetical
ordered list from ``ls -l''.
If we need a chronological ordered list there is ``ls -ltr'' sufficient.

Just a thought
Frank

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
> I succeeded.
> I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
> 
> For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:
> 
> Remove the 4 digit number from the log file names.
They're relevant to portage stable; down the line it'll likely be 
mtime based.
Right now that 4 digit number is an internal incrementing counter 
that's tagged into the log file name.

> It is a good idea to have 2 files for each package. One with the output
> of make and one with the messages for the installer. Name the former
> package-version.log and the latter package-version.msg

Doesn't work that way, and what you're after (restating your 
'installer' as enotice/ewarn/einfo) is elog, something that'll be in 
the next major version.

You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have FEATURES="buildpkg" 
on; effectively, portage build's the binpkg (log 1), then merges it 
(log 2).  This is inneficient though, since it builds up one $IMAGE 
dir, binpkg's it, then dumps it to another dir and installs from that.

That's an old annoyance that should die a miserable death soon enough.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:01:29 -0500
Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:

> You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have
> FEATURES="buildpkg" on;

No need to use buildpkg for that, the counter is always incremented
before pkg_postinst, creating a 2nd log for that phase (and then
pkg_*rm create a third one when you upgrade/uninstall the
package). This is bug #37498.

--
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage log suggestion

[Frank Schafer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
> > I succeeded.
> > I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
> > 
> > For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:
> > 
> > Remove the 4 digit number from the log file names.
> They're relevant to portage stable; down the line it'll likely be 
> mtime based.
> Right now that 4 digit number is an internal incrementing counter 
> that's tagged into the log file name.

I realized that. My suggestion was to NOT tag it there. It is more
annoying for the person who has to work with this directory. I know
there are a lot of gensomething tools but they don't do anything else
than duplicate the functionality of ``ls'' in this case. Leave it
simple!

> 
> > It is a good idea to have 2 files for each package. One with the output
> > of make and one with the messages for the installer. Name the former
> > package-version.log and the latter package-version.msg
> 
> Doesn't work that way, and what you're after (restating your 
> 'installer' as enotice/ewarn/einfo) is elog, something that'll be in 
> the next major version.

No, :D my installer is the person who installs the system :)

> 
> You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have FEATURES="buildpkg" 
> on; effectively, portage build's the binpkg (log 1), then merges it 
> (log 2).  This is inneficient though, since it builds up one $IMAGE 
> dir, binpkg's it, then dumps it to another dir and installs from that.
> 
> That's an old annoyance that should die a miserable death soon enough.

Please don't say that you plan to make the only sense-making messages to
nearly dismiss within many mega log files :(

Having a special function for logging (elog) is a good thing. This
function could create the pkg.version.log (output of the build process -
mostly make) and pkg.version.msg (the notes which some packages write
out meant for people what to be aware of). Unfortunately I'm not so good
in Python and don't have much time. So I can't involve in direct
development. Maybe this will be better in half a year.

> ~harring

Regards
Frank

PS: That's not meant as critics - it's a suggestion (see the subject ;)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list