Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:55 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: So genlop isn't a reason to not change the names of the log files, is it? Point taken (in fact i didn't know genlop got its stats from /var/log/emerge.log, i thought it got them from /var/log/portage/* I suggest that you submit a bug at bugs.gentoo.org or join the gentoo-dev list and post about it there. This list is NOT the place to change gentoo, as I have said before, not many dev's hang about on this list, and we are fortunate to have the few who do! Worthwhile discussion though, and it does help to iron your thoughts out here before going to the experts on bugzilla or -dev. Both type of user could be happy. Th one, which uses a bunch of nifty tools and the one who uses UNIX commands (hmmm... nifty tools too ;) -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:20:30 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: It does provide some useful functionality IMHO, (and obviously in the NSHO of the designer of the logging system.) I quite _like_ to see when i first installed mplayer, what versions i had installed at certain times, how long it will take to emerge (averaged over all the times I have previously emerged it). I particularly like being able to pipe emerge -puD world into genlop -p and find out how long a whole lot of ebuilds is likely to take. All of that uses the information in /var/log/emerge.log, not the individual logs in $PORT_LOGDIR. However, just because Frank can't see a need for logging more than one install of a package, doesn't mean that others won't have a use for it. I don't think the format of the logfile name is that important, as long as it is consistent and easily parsed. I do like Frank's suggestion of different names for the two log though, which would also mean that the numbering would make more sense as both logs from a single emerge would have the same number. -- Neil Bothwick As long as you do not move you can still choose any direction. pgp8rWagKZDyK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:20 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:38:41 +0200 Frank Schafer wrote: There shouldn't be more logs than we have actually packages installed. The log for the installation of the version of (say) python I had installed 3 years ago isn't worth anything. (Me to say) A successful installation of a new version of a package can safely overwrite the old log because IMHO nobody needs the installation logs of not installed software. It does provide some useful functionality IMHO, (and obviously in the NSHO of the designer of the logging system.) I quite _like_ to see when i first installed mplayer, what versions i had installed at certain times, how long it will take to emerge (averaged over all the times I have previously emerged it). I particularly like being able to pipe emerge -puD world into genlop -p and find out how long a whole lot of ebuilds is likely to take. -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] O.K. if you want to se all of this fo years, maybe you're glad enough to own a n at least some TB disk array. ;) After emerging of a minimal system (91 packages during semrge system) the content of /var/log/portage takes 250MB. Due to the wanna know how long does it take ... ``ls'' is your friend. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:59:53 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: O.K. if you want to se all of this fo years, maybe you're glad enough to own a n at least some TB disk array. ;) After emerging of a minimal system (91 packages during semrge system) the content of /var/log/portage takes 250MB. Which is easier? For you to create a script to delete all old logfiles in here, or for someone who needs them to write a script to recover them after your proposed method deletes them? Alternatively, you could have a cron job that gzips them, reducing the size by around 90%. Due to the wanna know how long does it take ... ``ls'' is your friend. genlop doesn't even need per-package logging to $PORT_LOGDIR, and it saves on the mental arithmetic. Personally, I prefer to let the computer do the work whenever possible. It's why I bought it. -- Neil Bothwick Bother, said Pooh, as he was given another bad script. pgpp2ZhlfAixN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 12:31 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:59:53 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: O.K. if you want to se all of this fo years, maybe you're glad enough to own a n at least some TB disk array. ;) After emerging of a minimal system (91 packages during semrge system) the content of /var/log/portage takes 250MB. Which is easier? For you to create a script to delete all old logfiles in here, or for someone who needs them to write a script to recover them after your proposed method deletes them? Alternatively, you could have a cron job that gzips them, reducing the size by around 90%. Due to the wanna know how long does it take ... ``ls'' is your friend. genlop doesn't even need per-package logging to $PORT_LOGDIR, and it So genlop isn't a reason to not change the names of the log files, is it? Both type of user could be happy. Th one, which uses a bunch of nifty tools and the one who uses UNIX commands (hmmm... nifty tools too ;) saves on the mental arithmetic. Personally, I prefer to let the computer do the work whenever possible. It's why I bought it. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:18 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote: -Original Message- From: Frank Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. I could be wrong but it could be the PID of the emerge process. Maybe ;) but I didn't want to ask where these numbers come from but to suggest to not have them in the name of the logfile. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:02:21 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. Maybe some internal feature of portage? What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? I like the idea of giving the two logs different names, it would make parsing this information with a script much easier. You'd still need some sort of unique identifier in the names, because you could merge the same package version more than once. But naming the files .log and .msg would at least allow the same identifier for both files for the same merge. -- Neil Bothwick This virus requires Microsoft Windows XP pgpselxAyAMy2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
Neil Bothwick wrote: I like the idea of giving the two logs different names, it would make parsing this information with a script much easier. You'd still need some sort of unique identifier in the names, because you could merge the same package version more than once. But naming the files .log and .msg would at least allow the same identifier for both files for the same merge. try searching for enotice on gentooexperimental. It's a nice script that stores all messages for later use. -- Naga -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 09:37 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:02:21 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. Maybe some internal feature of portage? What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? I like the idea of giving the two logs different names, it would make parsing this information with a script much easier. You'd still need some sort of unique identifier in the names, because you could merge the same package version more than once. But naming the files .log and .msg would at least allow the same identifier for both files for the same merge. I wondered about this myself meanwhile. If the rebuild is caused by an ``emerge --sync emerge -u world``, we have a new version number. If the rebuild is caused by a USE flag change, I'd go the way I do if I change configuration files: mv package.version.log package.version.log.OLD mv package.version.msg package.version.msg.OLD emerge package if [ emerge fails ]; then luckily we have the build log of the still installed package else rm *.OLD We don't need install logs of packages which aren't installed, do we? fi -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, September 12, 2005 8:02 pm, Frank Schafer said: Hi list, I'm just wondering about the manner portage manages it log files. It's a very good idea to have 2 logs for each package (one with each end every line of the make output and one with the messages of the package for the installer). I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. it keeps them in time order try find or ls|grep What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? A simple ``ls'' then will show the logs in alphabetical order making it easier to find a single one. A ``ls -tr'' will show the logs in chronological order. To see in which order the packages were built, rebuilt ..., how long did it take to build a package and so on. What you about this? Regards Frank -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:25 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 8:02 pm, Frank Schafer said: Hi list, I'm just wondering about the manner portage manages it log files. It's a very good idea to have 2 logs for each package (one with each end every line of the make output and one with the messages of the package for the installer). I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. it keeps them in time order My idea is that the time is in order with ``ls -tr'' and the alphabet is in order with ``ls''. try find or ls|grep That's fine if I know the exact package name and spelling. Reading an ordered list makes this unnecessary. What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? A simple ``ls'' then will show the logs in alphabetical order making it easier to find a single one. A ``ls -tr'' will show the logs in chronological order. To see in which order the packages were built, rebuilt ..., how long did it take to build a package and so on. What you about this? Regards Frank -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, September 12, 2005 9:35 pm, Frank Schafer said: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:25 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 8:02 pm, Frank Schafer said: I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. it keeps them in time order My idea is that the time is in order with ``ls -tr'' and the alphabet is in order with ``ls''. this is not the forum for seeking to change the way gentoo works, the devs don't really inhabit this list. Try gentoo-dev :-) try find or ls|grep That's fine if I know the exact package name and spelling. Reading an ordered list makes this unnecessary. What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? I have emerged (for example) the same version of mplayer with different use flags until I got it how I wanted it, your system does not allow for this. A simple ``ls'' then will show the logs in alphabetical order making it easier to find a single one. A ``ls -tr'' will show the logs in chronological order. To see in which order the packages were built, rebuilt ..., how long did it take to build a package and so on. genlop -t tells you how long the ebuild took. as in genlop -t mplayer Just think about this: every other log file in the system is ordered by date time :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:55 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 9:35 pm, Frank Schafer said: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:25 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 8:02 pm, Frank Schafer said: I'm wondering why there are these 4 digit numbers in front of the name of each log file. This makes it hard to find the log for a single package by name. it keeps them in time order My idea is that the time is in order with ``ls -tr'' and the alphabet is in order with ``ls''. this is not the forum for seeking to change the way gentoo works, the devs don't really inhabit this list. Try gentoo-dev :-) thanks :) try find or ls|grep That's fine if I know the exact package name and spelling. Reading an ordered list makes this unnecessary. What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? I have emerged (for example) the same version of mplayer with different use flags until I got it how I wanted it, your system does not allow for this. See another of my posts in this thread. A simple ``ls'' then will show the logs in alphabetical order making it easier to find a single one. A ``ls -tr'' will show the logs in chronological order. To see in which order the packages were built, rebuilt ..., how long did it take to build a package and so on. genlop -t tells you how long the ebuild took. as in genlop -t mplayer I decline to install a bunch of gen* tools which simply duplicate the functionality of UNIX commands (like ls in this case) ;p Just think about this: every other log file in the system is ordered by date time :-) Right in the looking in the syslog I'm seeng events in the order they occured in one file. Here we have a couple of logs which I'd like to find quickly by name/time (due to the question I ask and UNIX has a tool for this already) which content is again chronological. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 22:59 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 10:24 pm, Frank Schafer said: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:55 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 9:35 pm, Frank Schafer said: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:25 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: On Mon, September 12, 2005 8:02 pm, Frank Schafer said: I have emerged (for example) the same version of mplayer with different use flags until I got it how I wanted it, your system does not allow for this. See another of my posts in this thread. A simple ``ls'' then will show the logs in alphabetical order making it easier to find a single one. A ``ls -tr'' will show the logs in chronological order. To see in which order the packages were built, rebuilt ..., how long did it take to build a package and so on. genlop -t tells you how long the ebuild took. as in genlop -t mplayer I decline to install a bunch of gen* tools which simply duplicate the functionality of UNIX commands (like ls in this case) ;p perhaps you ought to learn how to use grep or find. People write tools for you, you are free to use them or futz around doing your own thing. I see you didn't read the whole thread. The only thing I had to learn (my own futz) is ``ls'' in this case. (see 7 lines above) The system works well for many people. But this is linux, change portage on your system to log differently and then submit a patch to bugzilla. Or just submit the idea to bugzilla. Don't forget to include a way to fix the 3 or more years of log files in /var/log/portage. Don't forget to make out a really good justification because otherwise the devs will think you are just a moaner. There shouldn't be more logs than we have actually packages installed. The log for the installation of the version of (say) python I had installed 3 years ago isn't worth anything. (Me to say) A successful installation of a new version of a package can safely overwrite the old log because IMHO nobody needs the installation logs of not installed software. Just think about this: every other log file in the system is ordered by date time :-) Right in the looking in the syslog I'm seeng events in the order they occured in one file. Here we have a couple of logs which I'd like to find quickly by name/time (due to the question I ask and UNIX has a tool for this already) which content is again chronological. what the hell are you trying to find? If it is the log for package foo, simply find the file with foo in the name in /var/log/portage. ... Which is much easier in an alphabetical ordered list. Xcuse me that I'm trying to involve. F. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
What about changing the logfile names to: package-version.log package-version.msg? Because multiple installs of the same version would overwrite the log. The added prefix is, I believe, either some sort of order number or a time-based reference, not sure which. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage logs
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:38:41 +0200 Frank Schafer wrote: There shouldn't be more logs than we have actually packages installed. The log for the installation of the version of (say) python I had installed 3 years ago isn't worth anything. (Me to say) A successful installation of a new version of a package can safely overwrite the old log because IMHO nobody needs the installation logs of not installed software. It does provide some useful functionality IMHO, (and obviously in the NSHO of the designer of the logging system.) I quite _like_ to see when i first installed mplayer, what versions i had installed at certain times, how long it will take to emerge (averaged over all the times I have previously emerged it). I particularly like being able to pipe emerge -puD world into genlop -p and find out how long a whole lot of ebuilds is likely to take. -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
