Matt Fleming
2014-Dec-22 22:06 UTC
[syslinux] [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote:> > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > first instance of this silencing. > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects?There's no downside that I can see. Go for it. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Ady
2014-Dec-23 01:40 UTC
[syslinux] [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
> On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > > > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > > first instance of this silencing. > > > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? > > There's no downside that I can see. Go for it. > > -- > Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center > _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com > Unsubscribe or set options at: > http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux >The downside would be that other (much more relevant) output lines could be easily missed when the log is *that* much longer. If the gnu-efi commit that the Syslinux's build is pointing to is "the same as always", then there shouldn't be any problem with the gnu-efi submodule. The problem arises with people trying to build Syslinux by themselves, instead of following the recommended / suggested method. The gnu-efi*.sh output should be more relevant if Syslinux upstream code would point now to a newer commit in the gnu-efi git. Once the result works as expected, the output is no longer useful. This is more a "package maintainers" problem than a Syslinux upstream problem. Regards, Ady.
Gene Cumm
2014-Dec-23 16:54 UTC
[syslinux] [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:> >> On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: >> > >> > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the >> > first instance of this silencing. >> > >> > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be >> > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? >> >> There's no downside that I can see. Go for it.> The downside would be that other (much more relevant) output lines > could be easily missed when the log is *that* much longer. If the > gnu-efi commit that the Syslinux's build is pointing to is "the same as > always", then there shouldn't be any problem with the gnu-efi > submodule.Perspective. 300 lines in 4200 lines of output isn't much. Additionally, most issues that arise in the middle of a build's output are missing parallel dependencies (which are our issue and several of these have been recently resolved) or garbage from a misbuild (ie doing make directly in the gnu-efi folder). -- -Gene
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
- [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
- [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
- [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh
- [PATCH] check-gnu-efi.sh: print the output of build-gnu-efi.sh