DJ Lucas wrote these words on 01/22/06 23:30 CST: > I can't find the original point at which the log was > added, but here is one that explains why far after the fact. > > http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2004-February/005088.html
Not for any other reason than conversation, and providing an argument the same if we were sitting face to face at a table, I don't see the point here, DJ. I didn't go to the URL, as it is two years old, and I can't remember having an issue with X that wasn't clearly displayed at the end of the make output or logfile, whichever the case may be, so I can't help but think that any X issue at this point should be easy to determine. Now, we have 200 little makefiles that can't possibly be difficult to troubleshoot if you have issues, right? Sure, we could provide a script that parses the filename and then creates a corresponding log file name from there and make 200 log files, or make just the sections into one log file or whatever. But because there is so many alternatives, I'm not sure we should be suggesting one method, when there are so many. Just my thoughts. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:39:00 up 120 days, 9:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.29 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
