Alec Ten Harmsel <a...@alectenharmsel.com> writes: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52:41AM +0200, lee wrote: >> >> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote: >> > >> > Fellow, I'm done with you, really. >> > >> > You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured >> > memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently >> > ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list. >> > >> > Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you >> > submitting patches though. >> >> You ran out of arguments and remain at insisting that the problem is >> known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated while rejecting >> suggestions but asking for patches. So I have no reason to think that >> patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, and now even if you >> came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is >> a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), I wouldn't >> waste my time with it. Congratulations. >> > > Someone (I can't remember who, probably Rich Freeman or some other dev) > described a problem with the general process of fixing the portage > output a while ago. I believe the steps went something like this: > > 1. Think the portage output sucks > 2. Learn what the output means > 3. Lose all motivation to improve the output because it is no longer > necessary for you
There seems to be a fourth step when it comes to portage: 4. Discourage everyone who has ideas for improvements and might be willing to implement them from actually doing so by telling them that they are idiots and should shut up --- and when they indicate that they are willing to do just that, complain about that they do just that. > The portage output is not as good as it could be, but everyone with the > knowledge to fix it doesn't because they neither care (because they > understand it) *nor* are they being paid. > > In my opinion, the portage output is not that bad, in the same way that > gcc's error messages are not that bad. They can be difficult to get used > to and some of them are absolutely ridiculous, but after using gcc for a > while they almost always make sense and are precise. I find the error messages from gcc are pretty good. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
