Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with FEATURES=stricter. This is what I currently do in my bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know what you are doing? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:41, Petteri Räty wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with FEATURES=stricter. This is what I currently do in my bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know what you are doing? if we start hiding the output like that then most people will ignore them -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with FEATURES=stricter. This is what I currently do in my bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know what you are doing? I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Later Days, -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
Lares Moreau wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with FEATURES=stricter. This is what I currently do in my bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know what you are doing? I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user. Could it be split? Have the QA stuff shown on screen only when --verbose is set, but have all the information written to PORT_LOGDIR no matter the flag. In my experience most users don't use PORT_LOGDIR in the first place. People who want the information define PORT_LOGDIR and have the information. Why add files containing duplicate information? -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
Lares Moreau wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user. Could it be split? Have the QA stuff shown on screen only when --verbose is set, but have all the information written to PORT_LOGDIR no matter the flag. That will be difficult to explain as a behaviour, not logical to me. In my experience most users don't use PORT_LOGDIR in the first place. People who want the information define PORT_LOGDIR and have the information. Why add files containing duplicate information? ditto. Imagine a world where every (Gentoo) user is a developer... dream... more! You are right - impossible. However, by bitching about problems, there are some users that decide to check WTF is this warning, in turn they urge devs to fix it (and that is the main point of QA, right?), they report it with their bug reports and so on. In other words, the problem gets _NOTICED_ by everybody. IMHO, leave it as it is now and don't bother. It is not that much of an output, compared to the compile output anyway. I'd prefer even having it red/bold/whatever for easy spotting. And for the future, what about defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru in make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the time. Kalin. /know_how -master --dev/ -- |[ ~~ ]| +- http://ThinRope.net/ -+ |[ __ ]| -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 10:34 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: what about defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru in make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the time. This is what happens anyway, but it is called FEATURES :) -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
Lares Moreau wrote: On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 10:34 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: what about defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru in make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the time. This is what happens anyway, but it is called FEATURES :) From `man make.conf` FEATURES = sandbox ccache autoaddcvs Defines actions portage takes by default. These options should not be changed by anyone but developers and/or maintainers. 'sandbox' is an important part of FEATURES and should not be disabled by default. This is an incremental variable. So I guess I am close to developers and/or maintainers as I change that on day 0 on any Gentoo box I install :-) s/'sandbox' is an important part of FEATURES and should not be disabled by default/ 'sandbox' is an important part of FEATURES and should not be disabled by default (but disabled on `emerge perl`)/g or die; I still think, GENTOO_LEVEL is a better one though. Kalin. -- |[ ~~ ]| +- http://ThinRope.net/ -+ |[ __ ]| -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
snip However, by bitching about problems, there are some users that decide to check WTF is this warning, in turn they urge devs to fix it (and that is the main point of QA, right?), they report it with their bug reports and so on. In other words, the problem gets _NOTICED_ by everybody. IMHO, leave it as it is now and don't bother. It is not that much of an output, compared to the compile output anyway. I'd prefer even having it red/bold/whatever for easy spotting. I agree - hiding QA stuff just makes it be there longer. The more people notice it, the more likely it is to get fixed, which is the best way of making it not show up (IMHO anyway). And for the future, what about defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru in make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the time. I don't think many people would enjoy having a system that made it its business to tell them what they should know about. Different people have different learning rates and learn in different ways about different things. People who want to learn to solve their own problems will; those who don't aren't likely to want their computer to try to force them to (although I'll admit that Gentoo doesn't exactly attract loads of the latter type). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
