date:20111114


Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/13/2011 03:09 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:

Zac Medico schrieb:

On 11/13/2011 07:49 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:

Please give me a good reason, why i should by default do more things (adding 
quiet-build=n to the
default emerge opts or searching for and opening the build.log) and what i or 
others do get from
that. And less lines on the screen is no added value for me, it removes value.

Why should we expose new users to legacy defaults that are useless to
more than 99% users, when they would most likely prefer the
--quiet-build display?

Why should we change the default behaviour for existing users? Those, who dont 
want to see it,
probably already use --jobs or quiet-build=y. For the rest, they either dont 
know about those
options (which does not get better, if some default behaviour changes) or they 
dont want those
options (in which case you force them to change their configuration/scripts/way 
to do things).

When we change defaults, it affects everyone who hasn't yet overridden
the setting in EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. That's just how it is.


Additionally, do you have any numbers about existing or new users and about the 
percentage, which
would like the build output to be quiet?

All I have is the feedback from this mailing list, an my own intuition.
My intuition says that --quiet-build is reasonable default that the
silent majority of people will welcome.



Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a build 
fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to see the 
output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to why it failed 
or something I can google for.


This is a users point of view.  I expect things to remain the same 
unless that will break something.  I like emerge, or any program, to 
work like it always has, at least what the user sees, until the change 
is so drastic to compel a change a user does see.


So, the option to change the output that people expect to see is not 
anything that needs to be done.  It doesn't change what portage does 
under the hood and there is no real reason to change it.


On a side note.  I do wish things like this, added features to portage, 
could be announced on something like user-announce.  That would mean a 
addition mailing list but that could be read only except to devs.  When 
something is going to change, announce it there.  Maybe some thread on 
the forums for those who don't use mailing lists.  I have noticed that 
portage is a moving target.  Things are constantly being added and it is 
difficult to keep up at times.  This would certainly help.  The messages 
would be few but I think it would be awesome to have.  When something 
gets added, send out a announcement so people know to expect it and can 
decide if it is something they can use.


Hope you enjoy my feedback even tho it is different from what you 
expected.  I'm rare but not that rare.


Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Amadeusz Żołnowski

Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:
 Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a build
 fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to see the
 output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to why it failed
 or something I can google for.

If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.

-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default


Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/13/2011 08:24 AM, Duncan wrote:

The previous defaults made perfect sense to me already.  Parallel emerge
jobs already puts portage in quiet mode, and that's what most people who
care (see my point above about whether this is the right distro choice or
not) should already be using.  That default makes sense, since otherwise
the output would be jumbled anyway.

1-at-a-time merge defaults are therefore where the question is.  Two
positions could be taken here.  If it is argued that those who care will
already be using parallel mode in most cases, and that those who care but
that can't be bothered to switch their defaults really should be
questioning whether gentoo is an appropriate choice in the first place,
then a noisy default for 1-at-a-time makes sense too, because the only
time most (who care) will see it is when they're actually troubleshooting
something and thus deliberately using 1-at-a-time mode, in which case the
higher level of detail by default for that mode makes the the most sense.

Ever since I added --jobs support, I've felt that suppression of build
output would be a better default for at least the following reasons:

1) I estimate that the flooding of the terminal with build output is
useless for more than 99% of users. Usually, there's too much
information scrolling by at too high of a rate for it to be
intelligible. Having this as the default behavior is ridiculous and
leads to jokes like apt-gentoo [1]. Generally, people who want to
analyze build output are best served by PORT_LOGDIR.


One key.  Scroll Lock.  You can look all you want then hit it again to 
let it carry on.  There is also ctrl Z as well.  I use that a good bit 
to see what is going on.  Just type in fg to carry on.


As for progress, genlop -c does that already.


2) With --quiet-build, the user is presented with a useful summary of
overall progress, along with current load average data. The output is
consistent regardless of whether or not the emerge --jobs option is used.

[1] http://chris-lamb.co.uk/2011/08/12/careful-what-you-wish-for/


Unless you are trying to compile one that failed earlier.  Then you 
don't want the default, you want to see what made it fail.  Then google 
is our friend again.


That said, GREAT work on portage.  :-D

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default


Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:

Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:

Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a build
fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to see the
output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to why it failed
or something I can google for.

If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.



That doesn't always go back far enough tho.  I have on my new rig seen 
the failure be as far back as a couple hundred lines.  There are a 
number of times that I have had to use the Find function to even find 
the original failure because it is so far back.  I have even set Konsole 
to have unlimited history.Unless it is going to tail -n 500 or more, 
that may not go back far enough.  This is the age of multiple cores and 
enough ram to use tmpfs.  I have both.  4 cores and 16Gbs of ram.


MAKEOPTS=-j10
tmpfs on /var/tmp/portage type tmpfs (rw,noatime)

The MAKEOPTS is increasing.  I'm looking for that sweet spot.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Amadeusz Żołnowski

Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:43:36 +0100:
 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
  Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:
   Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a
   build fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to
   see the output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to
   why it failed or something I can google for.
 
  If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.
 
 That doesn't always go back far enough tho.  I have on my new rig seen
 the failure be as far back as a couple hundred lines.

Well, don't say that if problem is hundreds lines back you search it in
that output.  I'd use for that purpose less build.log anyway.


-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default


Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:

Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:43:36 +0100:

Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:

Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:

Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a
build fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to
see the output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to
why it failed or something I can google for.

If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.

That doesn't always go back far enough tho.  I have on my new rig seen
the failure be as far back as a couple hundred lines.

Well, don't say that if problem is hundreds lines back you search it in
that output.  I'd use for that purpose less build.log anyway.




If emerge puts it on the screen like it always has, I won't need to go 
to any build.log.  It will be there on the screen already since I have 
history set to save everything.   That just means this change is going 
to cause users to do even more to find out what is broke.  That could 
lead to posts on the forums or mailing lists where people have a build 
to fail and very little if any info since there is not much on the screen.


As I mentioned in another post.  Users expect things to work like they 
always have.  That is my point.  There is really no reason to change 
this.  It doesn't change what portage does under the hood at all.  The 
old way does help the user tho.  It has been a while but I have had 
compiles to freeze or loop.  No output means it would sit there for a 
good long while, possibly doing nothing.


Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/2011 05:11 AM, Dale wrote:
 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
 Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:43:36 +0100:
 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
 Excerpts from Dale's message of 2011-11-14 13:17:28 +0100:
 Here is some feedback then.  I liked it the way it was.  When a
 build fails, I do a one of install of that package and I like to
 see the output.  Why, because sometimes it gives me a hint as to
 why it failed or something I can google for.
 If it fails you get tail of build.log, so you see it anyway.
 That doesn't always go back far enough tho.  I have on my new rig seen
 the failure be as far back as a couple hundred lines.
 Well, don't say that if problem is hundreds lines back you search it in
 that output.  I'd use for that purpose less build.log anyway.


 
 If emerge puts it on the screen like it always has, I won't need to go
 to any build.log.  It will be there on the screen already since I have
 history set to save everything.

This is already the case with --quiet-build. In the event of a build
failure, emerge dumps the *entire* log to the terminal. So, the above
dialog is discussing a problem that doesn't even exist.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/2011 12:47 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:59, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
 Well, it's much easier to gather interest and get feedback if we deploy
 the change and ask questions later.
 
 I like the new output, but find it kind of annoying that there's very
 little feedback on how far the progress is within a single job.
 Perhaps we could show the currently executing ebuild phase in order to
 give a little more feedback? Maybe most packages are completely
 dominated by src_compile(), but for smaller packages it would be
 helpful, IMO.

I think that would be an interesting option. I imagine that it would be
too much information for many people, so I don't think that we'd want to
enable it by default.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Monday 14 November 2011 04:39:50 Patrick Lauer wrote:
 Why do y'all want to make it harder for me to figure out

you've already told you how to put it into verbose mode (it's all of one line 
in your make.conf).  you do it once, and then you're done.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-tools: relocation in profiles/

On Sunday 13 November 2011 12:26:25 Mike Frysinger wrote:
 i noticed that we have net-tools listed in base/packages.  considering this
 is a Linux-only tool, this doesn't make sense anymore.  so i'll be
 relocating it to default/linux/packages.

relocated
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/2011 04:36 AM, Dale wrote:
 Zac Medico wrote:
 1) I estimate that the flooding of the terminal with build output is
 useless for more than 99% of users. Usually, there's too much
 information scrolling by at too high of a rate for it to be
 intelligible. Having this as the default behavior is ridiculous and
 leads to jokes like apt-gentoo [1]. Generally, people who want to
 analyze build output are best served by PORT_LOGDIR.
 
 One key.  Scroll Lock.  You can look all you want then hit it again to
 let it carry on.  There is also ctrl Z as well.  I use that a good bit
 to see what is going on.  Just type in fg to carry on.
 
 As for progress, genlop -c does that already.

We're not stopping you from using your preferred approach. Just set
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n in /etc/make.conf if it suits you.


 2) With --quiet-build, the user is presented with a useful summary of
 overall progress, along with current load average data. The output is
 consistent regardless of whether or not the emerge --jobs option is used.

 [1] http://chris-lamb.co.uk/2011/08/12/careful-what-you-wish-for/
 
 Unless you are trying to compile one that failed earlier.  Then you
 don't want the default, you want to see what made it fail.  Then google
 is our friend again.

With --quiet-build, if a build fails then the *entire* build log is
displayed on the terminal.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default


Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/14/2011 04:36 AM, Dale wrote:

Zac Medico wrote:

1) I estimate that the flooding of the terminal with build output is
useless for more than 99% of users. Usually, there's too much
information scrolling by at too high of a rate for it to be
intelligible. Having this as the default behavior is ridiculous and
leads to jokes like apt-gentoo [1]. Generally, people who want to
analyze build output are best served by PORT_LOGDIR.

One key.  Scroll Lock.  You can look all you want then hit it again to
let it carry on.  There is also ctrl Z as well.  I use that a good bit
to see what is going on.  Just type in fg to carry on.

As for progress, genlop -c does that already.

We're not stopping you from using your preferred approach. Just set
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n in /etc/make.conf if it suits you.


Well, I'm off to disable another default being pushed out.  I just 
wonder if make.conf is going to end up the largest file portage uses one 
day.  :/   Every time something changes, I go add another setting to 
make.conf.


As I type:

emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

So far that's the winner.  As I posted earlier, people expect things to 
work like they have always worked.  I say that as a user.


Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:42:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
 now that we have USE=cxx, and base/make.defaults has USE=cxx, i'd like to
 migrate gcc away from USE=nocxx.

http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.478r2=1.479
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:
 As I type:
 
 emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%
 
 So far that's the winner.  As I posted earlier, people expect things to
 work like they have always worked.  I say that as a user.

As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to
factor in the silent majority that welcomes the change and does not
express it publicly. A forumor mailing list thread tends to attract a
vocal minority, which tends to bias the discussion (or voting results)
in way that does not give a fair statistical representation of the
gentoo population as a whole (it excludes the silent majority). It's
part of human nature that those who are displeased with the changed more
likely to speak up than those who welcome the change.

[1]
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6871718.html?sid=960ebd269384029c21e708d8dfa745ef#6871718
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Ian Stakenvicius

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 14/11/11 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
 On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:
 As I type:

 emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

 So far that's the winner.  As I posted earlier, people expect things to
 work like they have always worked.  I say that as a user.
 
 As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to
 factor in the silent majority that welcomes the change and does not
 express it publicly.

Uhh..  isn't that like saying, in a general election, you have to take
into account all the people that don't vote ??  Just sayin'...


My $0.02 is that, after 50-60 (or more? i lost count) posts on whether
this flag is set or not, and what seems to be entrenchment instead of
consolidation on either side, maybe this should be put on the agenda at
the next Council meeting -- 5 mins of debate + a vote and the argument
is done, right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk7BWn0ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0gvwD/ZyU1VkmIaLYP9sX7N0ynXWAH
2sr6ebi2tHVAvEcFMu0BAIBX8JRUYRbTTsOBmykfcm8OzJsDASoCLX4liYPIoT+i
=hi57
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/2011 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
 On 14/11/11 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
 On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:
 As I type:

 emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

 So far that's the winner.  As I posted earlier, people expect things to
 work like they have always worked.  I say that as a user.
 
 As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to
 factor in the silent majority that welcomes the change and does not
 express it publicly.
 
 Uhh..  isn't that like saying, in a general election, you have to take
 into account all the people that don't vote ??  Just sayin'...

You've snipped my comment about human nature, which is that those who
are displeased with the changed more likely to speak up than those who
welcome the change.

 My $0.02 is that, after 50-60 (or more? i lost count) posts on whether
 this flag is set or not, and what seems to be entrenchment instead of
 consolidation on either side, maybe this should be put on the agenda at
 the next Council meeting -- 5 mins of debate + a vote and the argument
 is done, right?

That sound fair to me. Maybe not entirely statistically fair, but that
can only ever be approximated anyway.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:

As I type:

emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

So far that's the winner. As I posted earlier, people expect things to
work like they have always worked. I say that as a user.

As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to
factor in the silent majority that welcomes the change and does not
express it publicly. A forumor mailing list thread tends to attract a
vocal minority, which tends to bias the discussion (or voting results)
in way that does not give a fair statistical representation of the
gentoo population as a whole (it excludes the silent majority). It's
part of human nature that those who are displeased with the changed more
likely to speak up than those who welcome the change.

[1]
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6871718.html?sid=960ebd269384029c21e708d8dfa745ef#6871718

The same could be said if the poll was going the other way as well. If
the results are not going to be used or just going to be explained away,
then why have the poll to begin with? I don't think you started the
poll but just saying. . .

Again, as a loong time user, I expect things to remain like they are
unless that is going to break something or is a must change with no
other option. That does happen from time to time but this is not one of
those times. I shouldn't have to go override settings just to keep it
like it was.

All this said, if my opinion doesn't matter, that's fine. I changed my
make.conf already. So now your change doesn't affect me. It just may
confuse the heck out of others that don't subscribe here and know about
the change. That is the biggest reason I subscribed here a long time
ago. Changes pop up that I wasn't expecting and I tend to like to see
things coming even if it is a freight train. ;-) This gives me time to
undo some things or at least prepare for them.

Later.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

2011-11-14 Thread Mike Gilbert

On 11/13/2011 11:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Sunday 13 November 2011 16:42:39 Mike Gilbert wrote:
 If I understand you correctly, you are just going to add a cxx use
 flag to gcc for some transitional period? If so, I can simply switch it
 at some point after you add the new flag?
 
 transition period:
 http://sources.gentoo.org/www-client/google-chrome/google-chrome-17.0.932.0_alpha108826.ebuild?r1=1.1r2=1.2
 
 eventually you can drop the [-nocxx] dep, but it'll prob be a while.
 -mike

Thanks.

Why do I need the [-nocxx] dep at this point? Everybody is going to end
up rebuilding gcc with the new use flag anyway.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Hilco Wijbenga

On 14 November 2011 10:34, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:

As I type:

emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

So far that's the winner. As I posted earlier, people expect things to
work like they have always worked. I say that as a user.

[1]

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6871718.html?sid=960ebd269384029c21e708d8dfa745ef#6871718

The same could be said if the poll was going the other way as well. If the
results are not going to be used or just going to be explained away, then
why have the poll to begin with? I don't think you started the poll but
just saying. . .

Again, as a loong time user, I expect things to remain like they are
unless that is going to break something or is a must change with no other
option. That does happen from time to time but this is not one of those
times. I shouldn't have to go override settings just to keep it like it
was.

Shouldn't you still be on MS-DOS then? ;-) Insisting that basically
nothing should ever change seems rather extreme... And not very
realistic?

All this said, if my opinion doesn't matter, that's fine. I changed my
make.conf already. So now your change doesn't affect me. It just may
confuse the heck out of others that don't subscribe here and know about the
change. That is the biggest reason I subscribed here a long time ago.
Changes pop up that I wasn't expecting and I tend to like to see things
coming even if it is a freight train. ;-) This gives me time to undo some
things or at least prepare for them.

Later.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

Hilco Wijbenga wrote:

On 14 November 2011 10:34, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:

As I type:

emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

So far that's the winner. As I posted earlier, people expect things to
work like they have always worked. I say that as a user.

[1]

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6871718.html?sid=960ebd269384029c21e708d8dfa745ef#6871718

The same could be said if the poll was going the other way as well. If the
results are not going to be used or just going to be explained away, then
why have the poll to begin with? I don't think you started the poll but
just saying. . .

Again, as a loong time user, I expect things to remain like they are
unless that is going to break something or is a must change with no other
option. That does happen from time to time but this is not one of those
times. I shouldn't have to go override settings just to keep it like it
was.

Shouldn't you still be on MS-DOS then? ;-) Insisting that basically
nothing should ever change seems rather extreme... And not very
realistic?

Allow me to quote myself:

is a must change with no other option.

I wasn't talking about computers in general but about portage. So let
me rephrase this a bit. I expect PORTAGE to work like it has unless a
change is forced because of a lack of other options. I was trying to
keep it on topic. I could use the analogy that Ford might decide to
make it so that when you turn the steering wheel to the right the car
goes left. Thing is, that doesn't quite stay on topic and may not even
be a good comparison. Thing is, it is not what people are used to or
expect. If you think about it, they could just say that the bottom of
the steering wheel tells which way you will be going not the top. This
would be the case even if the steering wheel is on the opposite side of
the car too. ^_^

Also, I don't use anything M$. I have NEVER bought anything that M$
makes. Period. As long as Linux exists, I have not only a good option
but a GREAT option. Read that as I hate winders.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

On Monday 14 November 2011 14:00:01 Mike Gilbert wrote:
 On 11/13/2011 11:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  On Sunday 13 November 2011 16:42:39 Mike Gilbert wrote:
  If I understand you correctly, you are just going to add a cxx use
  flag to gcc for some transitional period? If so, I can simply switch it
  at some point after you add the new flag?
  
  transition period:
  http://sources.gentoo.org/www-client/google-chrome/google-chrome-17.0.932
  .0_alpha108826.ebuild?r1=1.1r2=1.2
  
  eventually you can drop the [-nocxx] dep, but it'll prob be a while.
 
 Why do I need the [-nocxx] dep at this point? Everybody is going to end
 up rebuilding gcc with the new use flag anyway.

some people might, but not everyone.  if we remove the [-nocxx], and someone 
where to run `emerge google-chrome -u`, portage would fail with dependency 
errors.  i'd leave the dep in there for a while until most people have 
upgraded naturally.  perhaps after the next gcc stabilization.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

2011-11-14 Thread Mike Gilbert

On 11/14/2011 3:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Monday 14 November 2011 14:00:01 Mike Gilbert wrote:
 On 11/13/2011 11:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Sunday 13 November 2011 16:42:39 Mike Gilbert wrote:
 If I understand you correctly, you are just going to add a cxx use
 flag to gcc for some transitional period? If so, I can simply switch it
 at some point after you add the new flag?

 transition period:
 http://sources.gentoo.org/www-client/google-chrome/google-chrome-17.0.932
 .0_alpha108826.ebuild?r1=1.1r2=1.2

 eventually you can drop the [-nocxx] dep, but it'll prob be a while.

 Why do I need the [-nocxx] dep at this point? Everybody is going to end
 up rebuilding gcc with the new use flag anyway.
 
 some people might, but not everyone.  if we remove the [-nocxx], and someone 
 where to run `emerge google-chrome -u`, portage would fail with dependency 
 errors.

Actually, it pulls in gcc[cxx], and rebuilds gcc. There is no dependency
error. We can prevent an unnecessary gcc rebuild by listing [-nocxx]
first however, so I committed that.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Duncan

Zac Medico posted on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:55:57 -0800 as excerpted:

 Why do we go on living when we know that we will eventually die and that
 there will be no trace left of our existence? Life is a journey, and we
 are required to surrender all of our souvenirs in the end.

Whole religions are built on people's ideas there.  Perhaps 
unfortunately, you didn't explicitly note that your question was 
rhetorical.  In case anybody had any ideas, let's make it explicit, it's 
rhetorical, don't go there, or find some other more appropriate list for 
your discussion if you do!

=:^\

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Alec Warner

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:

On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:

As I type:

emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

So far that's the winner. As I posted earlier, people expect things to
work like they have always worked. I say that as a user.

[1]

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6871718.html?sid=960ebd269384029c21e708d8dfa745ef#6871718

The same could be said if the poll was going the other way as well. If the
results are not going to be used or just going to be explained away, then
why have the poll to begin with? I don't think you started the poll but
just saying. . .

A common misconception is that input is being ignored because it did
not affect the results as expected.

I don't expect the poll's current results to change Zac's mind
(certainly not at the 60 / 40 it is currently at; that is not a
compelling story at all.) You can say that the 'majority wins' on the
poll; but the reality of the situation is that only a subset of users
actually use the forums and only a tiny subset of forums users
actually voted thus far (130 votes total at my reading.)

The story is not a compelling one; if it was 80 / 20 or something more
obvious and there were thousands of voters you might be able to draw a
more powerful conclusion from the poll; as it stands any conclusion
drawn are weak at best.

Again, as a loong time user, I expect things to remain like they are
unless that is going to break something or is a must change with no other
option. That does happen from time to time but this is not one of those
times. I shouldn't have to go override settings just to keep it like it
was.

All this said, if my opinion doesn't matter, that's fine. I changed my
make.conf already. So now your change doesn't affect me. It just may
confuse the heck out of others that don't subscribe here and know about the
change. That is the biggest reason I subscribed here a long time ago.
Changes pop up that I wasn't expecting and I tend to like to see things
coming even if it is a freight train. ;-) This gives me time to undo some
things or at least prepare for them.

Your opinion does matter; just not enough to change the behavior ;)

-A

Later.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Zac Medico schrieb:
 On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote:
 As I type:

 emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42%

 So far that's the winner.  As I posted earlier, people expect things to
 work like they have always worked.  I say that as a user.
 
 As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to
 factor in the silent majority that welcomes the change and does not
 express it publicly. A forumor mailing list thread tends to attract a
 vocal minority, which tends to bias the discussion (or voting results)
 in way that does not give a fair statistical representation of the
 gentoo population as a whole (it excludes the silent majority). It's
 part of human nature that those who are displeased with the changed more
 likely to speak up than those who welcome the change.

For the record, I think as lead developer zmedico should have the final
word over what is default in portage, and if arguments or compromise
proposals fail to convince him otherwise, then it shall be as he decides.

That being said, please keep the crap out of this discussion. Especially
the claim that the majority of users welcome this change. You have no
data to back this up, other than selective perception à la in 14 hours
after proposing this change, no dissenting opinion was posted to
gentoo-dev. In fact, the data which was collected so far suggests
otherwise.

The vocal minority argument is just made up. A vocal minority can push
or oppose changes.

If you think that the change is better for users, and they just need
time to adjust, then be a man and stand to your opinion. Don't hide it
behind such phony claims.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

2011-11-14 Thread Duncan

Zac Medico posted on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:22:19 -0800 as excerpted:

 On 11/14/2011 12:47 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:59, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
 Well, it's much easier to gather interest and get feedback if we
 deploy the change and ask questions later.
 
 I like the new output, but find it kind of annoying that there's very
 little feedback on how far the progress is within a single job. Perhaps
 we could show the currently executing ebuild phase in order to give a
 little more feedback? Maybe most packages are completely dominated by
 src_compile(), but for smaller packages it would be helpful, IMO.
 
 I think that would be an interesting option. I imagine that it would be
 too much information for many people, so I don't think that we'd want to
 enable it by default.

Thanks for thinking out of the box. =:^)

This is one thing that I've found frustrating with parallel emerging, 
myself.

The first thing I discovered were that some phases (at least the merge 
phase, and I believe install) aren't counted, so the numbers don't 
entirely add up (complete + running + not-started + failed  total).  
Thus, some packages appear to be simply sitting there doing nothing.  
When a whole bunch of packages are in that state, it appears emerge is 
doing nothing but consuming cycles and real-time, for no visible reason 
at all.

Since for a number of packages (I seem to notice it most on kde packages, 
but perhaps it's all C++ or most CMAKE or some such, plus of course 
primarily data packages that don't have a significant build phase but 
install many or large files) the install phase can be as intense as the 
build phase if not more so, so if some phases aren't counted in 
running, then I'd definitely prefer they be counted /somewhere/.

Of course, listing the number of packages in each phase (which in single-
mode would by definition list the phase the single package is in) would 
cure the above issue at the same time.

Another problem, but one I'm not sure how to fix (tho the interactive 
display would offer opportunities here), is that it'd be nice to get a 
list of completed packages, in-process packages, and still not started 
packages.  That doesn't so easily fit in a neat summary, but as noted, 
the interactive proposal introduces quite some opportunity, here.

Alternatively, since often the real info desired is the status of a 
particular package, it'd be useful to have either an interactive command 
or a simple separate querying command, that can be run to query the 
status of a particular package.

*** Which brings up an alternative to the whole interactive emerges idea 
as well -- what about a separate command, say emerging, that when run, 
would simply output a bunch of detail on any pending emerges?

This would certainly offer a safer initial implementation, as well, since 
it's less likely to break the current setup due to bugs, etc.  Another 
noted benefit is that it leaves the existing defaults alone, so it's not 
going to be threatening anyone's sacred cows (or scripted assumptions) in 
terms of how portage has always behaved. =:^)


So, perhaps improve the current quiet display marginally, either 
including all phases in running or adding another listing so the 
numbers add up, but more importantly...

*** Add a new emerging (name up for bikeshedding) command, that 
displays a nice multiline summary, perhaps something like this (the 
second emerge command was for a failure in the first, with a second 
attempt made before completion of the main emerge @world has completed):

Current emerge status:

2 emerge command(s) running.
7 emerge jobs outstanding.

Commands:

** emerge --upgrade --deep --newuse --keep-going @world

Status:

123 of 257 jobs complete, 1 failed, 6 running, 120 not yet started,
7 dependencies removed due to failures.

Running (6):

1 pkgsetup (cat-egory/package-ver)

1 configure (cat-egory/package-ver, cat-egory/package-ver)

2 build (cat-egory/package-ver, cat-egory/package-ver)

1 install (cat-egory/package-ver)

1 merge (cat-egory/package-ver)

Failed (1):

dev-libs/boost-1.47.0-r1

Complete (123):

list   in  nicecolumns
...

Not started (120):

list   in  nicecolumns
...

Removed dependencies due to failure (7):

list   in  nicecolumns
...


** emerge -u1 boost

Status:

0 of 1 jobs complete, 1 running.

Running (1):

1 build (dev-libs/boost-1.47.0-r1)

Obviously the first implementation might not have all the information 
above, and there might have been some nice information I missed and other 
information that could be displayed better, but it's a very cool idea 
even if I /do/ say so myself. =:^)

Note that zeroed-out listings aren't displayed, so the the --oneshot 
doesn't list failed, not yet started, etc, and inactive phases are also 
not displayed.

Also note how easy this sort of detailed display would make it to retry 
failed jobs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default