Joe Marcus Clarke
marcus at marcuscom.com
Sun Mar 1 16:05:29 EST 2009
On Sun, 2009-03-01 at 21:58 +0100, Beat Gätzi wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:42:17 +0100
> > Beat Gätzi <beat at chruetertee.ch> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> >>> I think adding the pattern below to logfile_patters would give a
> >>> link to the most useful place in the log in case of depend_object
> >>> failures: /^===> .*-[0-9].* depends on .* - not found$/
> >>> Now we're getting
> >>> 'You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again'
> >>> which is less useful since we need to know why that port was built
> >>> (ie. what's wrong with the depends line) rather that is was built.
> >> Thanks for this idea. Unfortunately this is not possible with the
> >> current log file markup support. Only if a port build has been
> >> successful the patterns from logfile_patterns were used. In cases
> >> building a port fails the markup patterns are taken from
> >> port_fail_patterns. I think it could be possible to highlight the
> >> patterns from logfile_patterns as well but wouldn't this draw off the
> >> attention from the port fail patterns?
> > I thought it was a combination of the two. In this particular case,
> > since we first install depends, then when this '===>... not found'
> > appears it's obvious that a depend is specified wrong.
> > Maybe add it to port_fail_patterns then? I think is unique enough and
> > it would do the same this as the current 2000 pattern.
> As far as I know the failure patterns are kept in sync with pointyhat.
> Or are exception like this allowed?
We have sort of gone off-script with the pointyhat sync. We try to stay
in sync in terms of new additions, but our order is custom at this
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the tinderbox-list