Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:08:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:24:12 +0200 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > > hasufell schrieb: > > > When I sum that up again... > > > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for > > > backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have > > > been respected > > > - no need to tell the user to recompile with > > > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar just to be able to > > > help him > > > - some QA checks might depend on verbose build log and are not yet > > > implemented therefor > > > - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use > > > --quiet-build > > > > Sorry that I am late to the party, but I would add some concerns to > > this discussion. > > > > Verbose build logs are can be several times as large as non-verbose > > ones, which can run into our Bugzilla's attachment size limit. When > > a user is unable to attach the build.log file, typically one of the > > following happens: > > About that -- maybe we should finally consider increasing it? > Nowadays, HTTP is able to handle transparent compression, so plain > text logs are pretty fine there. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=430160 -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:24:12 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > hasufell schrieb: > > When I sum that up again... > > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for > > backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have > > been respected > > - no need to tell the user to recompile with > > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar just to be able to > > help him > > - some QA checks might depend on verbose build log and are not yet > > implemented therefor > > - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use > > --quiet-build > > Sorry that I am late to the party, but I would add some concerns to > this discussion. > > Verbose build logs are can be several times as large as non-verbose > ones, which can run into our Bugzilla's attachment size limit. When a > user is unable to attach the build.log file, typically one of the > following happens: About that -- maybe we should finally consider increasing it? Nowadays, HTTP is able to handle transparent compression, so plain text logs are pretty fine there. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
hasufell schrieb: > When I sum that up again... > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for > backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have been > respected > - no need to tell the user to recompile with > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar just to be able to help him > - some QA checks might depend on verbose build log and are not yet > implemented therefor > - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build Sorry that I am late to the party, but I would add some concerns to this discussion. Verbose build logs are can be several times as large as non-verbose ones, which can run into our Bugzilla's attachment size limit. When a user is unable to attach the build.log file, typically one of the following happens: 1. User compresses build.log with a common compressor like gzip, bzip2 or xz and manually sets the attachment MIME type correctly (best case). 2. User makes a compressed tarball, containing a single file 3. User cuts off the build.log somewhere in the middle, supplies the bottom part 4. User uploads build.log to a public file hoster or his own private web server, the link expires / 404s after some time (IMO worst case). In my opinion, build verbosity should not be dictated by policy, but rather left to the discretion of the maintainer. After all, he is the one who needs to deal with the bug reports. Having verbose build logs by default (with the possibility for the maintainer to override) would be ok with me though. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On 08/04/2012 09:03 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > > FFS, do not spam base-system yet again with stuff that's in the > process of being discussed still. Additionally, this is something that > should be fixed on the EAPI/eclass level and NOT per package. Putting > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" in EVERY package is epically > moronic. Make econf automatically use --disable-silent-rules. > Alright, I will only open bugs about packages then which don't use econf or cmake-utils and have to be fixed on a per-package level.
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM, hasufell wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell >> wrote: >> >>> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing >>> verbose build log for that which was approved: >>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml >>> >>> >>> > Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 >>> >>> I opened a tracker >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 >>> >>> Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote >>> on that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 >> >> PMS doesn't have such a thing as a 'policy'. Gentoo can have one, >> and I believe that should be discussed per Gentoo policy. >> > > So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual? > > Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then? FFS, do not spam base-system yet again with stuff that's in the process of being discussed still. Additionally, this is something that should be fixed on the EAPI/eclass level and NOT per package. Putting EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" in EVERY package is epically moronic. Make econf automatically use --disable-silent-rules. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On 03/08/2012 16:18, hasufell wrote: > So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual? > > Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then? Please do. QA will back the request for verbose logs by default. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell > wrote: > >> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing >> verbose build log for that which was approved: >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml >> >> >> Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 >> >> I opened a tracker >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 >> >> Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote >> on that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 > > PMS doesn't have such a thing as a 'policy'. Gentoo can have one, > and I believe that should be discussed per Gentoo policy. > So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual? Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQHFxhAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzNbQIAK2YN5HiLwFuQ8Q1AuIGGBsK 1zEQlO3pb5wSXlfnP7oPMtBjvMaphV+bulwuUWJURE3LRatgSrNOOFsk31T0I5NJ ShsZgzxA5L/ol74STDu1Oshu7dhCdnj9Xz2/6cUIAUuMirPRz+ac74NyclIrNj9T CygYW+F0AFbPVrJAi7/IjuvtUKrpcnlCPSprycnJ0rS9D2ZSuMJ6nI3DLeTjGhra YVWDuklODbUX8ay/lmPveINGpE/bMy0dbygrXr2j+gjl6Q2w7JgYF+muCZlPD8i3 9/wK51nzKGeK855G+5Su8FMmRJwb18RpAs1ztyeOagTStB6+8pi17RsDzg6zPW4= =sOc/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On 08/01/2012 11:27 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote: >> - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build >> > > ++ > > If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the > harm in spamming it with 100k? I realize the odd package has a fairly > quiet build system, but since most don't it seems more reasonable to > assume noisy output across the board and handle it. Gentoo already > offers the choice. > > Rich > I hate it when build systems hide information. I would love them to print all of it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
+1 for verbosity Il giorno 01/ago/2012 13:21, "hasufell" ha scritto: > > We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing verbose > build log for that which was approved: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml > > Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 > > I opened a tracker https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 > > Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote on that > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 > > > When I sum that up again... > - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for > backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have been > respected > - no need to tell the user to recompile with > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar just to be able to help him > - some QA checks might depend on verbose build log and are not yet > implemented therefor > - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build >
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell wrote: > We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing > verbose build log for that which was approved: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml > > Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 > > I opened a tracker https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 > > Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote on > that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 PMS doesn't have such a thing as a 'policy'. Gentoo can have one, and I believe that should be discussed per Gentoo policy. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote: > - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build > ++ If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the harm in spamming it with 100k? I realize the odd package has a fairly quiet build system, but since most don't it seems more reasonable to assume noisy output across the board and handle it. Gentoo already offers the choice. Rich
[gentoo-dev] force verbose build log as per PMS policy?
We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing verbose build log for that which was approved: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 I opened a tracker https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote on that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 When I sum that up again... - we are on gentoo and need as much information as possible for backtracing, resolving bugs, checking whether CFLAGS and such have been respected - no need to tell the user to recompile with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-silent-rules" or similar just to be able to help him - some QA checks might depend on verbose build log and are not yet implemented therefor - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build
