Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world

["Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1405 bytes --]



Lares Moreau wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>>>On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
>>>>or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
>>>>ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would
>>>>only happen with FEATURES="stricter". This is what I currently do in my
>>>>bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper
>>>>functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about
>>making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever)
>>file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that
>>users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but
>>developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output
>>a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know
>>what you are doing?
> 
> 
> I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar'
> user.  Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for
> the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in
> PORTLOG_DIR?
> 

Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]