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 AD0491388BF for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76D0221C027; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:20:46 +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 5E36A21C00A for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:f41:30c3:d8dd:6f33:1093:9f08:6183] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:f41:30c3:d8dd:6f33:1093:9f08:6183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B45F4340894; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android 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> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:20:35 +0100 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org,Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Message-ID: <64578254-F40A-44CF-AD5F-49C28BFCBA8B@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: fd039844-d06c-455f-b44c-943e189d6905 X-Archives-Hash: 24d4dfcd8c78d22e1219ba265bcd3f7d Dnia 17 lutego 2016 11:53:32 CET, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> napisał(a): >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 >>> 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. This is mixing channels again. Someone may decide to output warnings separately from elogs. Or not output elogs at all. -- Best regards, Michał Górny (by phone)