Dnia 17 lutego 2016 11:53:32 CET, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@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 <rh...@gentoo.org> >wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> >>> wrote: >>> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 "Justin Lecher (jlec)" >>> > <j...@gentoo.org> 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)