From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B13C1388BF for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD567E0883; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99BE4E087E for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:09:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Thinkpad.fritz.box (cable-static-236-115.teleport.ch [213.188.236.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: soap) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1755D340CC8 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1455707348.6382.0.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass From: David Seifert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:09:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <56C18975.3000409@gentoo.org> <20160215135925.34852bd6.mgorny@gentoo.org> <56C1D4A5.4080804@gentoo.org> <20160215153512.19c28892.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160216224808.47f88ab1@tundra.gateway.pace.com> <20160217074706.29afea1c.mgorny@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 8e6266b0-dca3-4a5c-96e0-e4b71b552a71 X-Archives-Hash: 120db31eea8b3975aa00981781c0e56d On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 10:53 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Michał Górny posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:47:06 +0100 as excerpted: > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny > > g> > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 "Justin Lecher (jlec)" > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > Don't mix echo with ewarn. > > > > > Why? > > > > Because they won't go through the same output channels. > > > > > > That's kinda the point.  You want a blank (unstarred) space to > > > separate > > > out the "important" messages from the generic spew put out by the > > > package manager/eclasses/build system that you have no control > > > over. > > > > This is not just that. Different output channels mean that: > > > - There is no guarantee of correct output order! The empty lines > > may > >   move randomly over the text. > > Good point!  (Of course the others are too, but this one could be  > particularly damaging to the intended communication.) > > > > If you have several different messages you want a blank space in > > > between them so you can use e* to create whitespace within the > > > message > > > to avoid the wall of text syndrome while still making it clear > > > where it > > > begins and ends. > > > > You're right that using echo means the whitespace doesn't get > > > saved by > > > the elog system.  A while back someone proposed we add espace for > > > exactly this reason but IIRC they were laughed down, which is a > > > shame. > > > > So... to summarize your point. You shouldn't use the correct > > function > > that is saved in elog which is primary way of getting info because > > you > > find it more convenient to have empty non-'starred' lines that > > don't > > actually get to elog and make elog a mess? > > > > If you really don't like empty 'starred' lines (and I actually like > > them > > since they make separation between packages cleaner), why not > > submit a > > patch for Portage and make 'elog' with no arguments output log line > > without a star? That's a trivial solution that doesn't require > > extra > > functions for the sake of inventing elogspace, ewarnspace, ... > > It is at least possible to use say blank ewarn between elog lines, or > the  > reverse, so while there's no totally blank separator, there's at > least a  > different color to the star on the starred-blank-line separator. > > Similarly, if there's more than one "topic" to the messages, and > they're  > of different severity, the severities can be interspersed to get > color  > separation. > > I believe I've seen both techniques used to good effect in a few > packages  > in the past, but I can't name any off the top of my head. > For all those who care, I've updated the eclass under: https://github.com/gentoo-science/sci/pull/588