Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 02/17/2018 02:32 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> If that's accepted, I or someone else can work on adding the
>> same V=1 to the make command for the other nvidia-*-kmod
>> packages.
>
> The question is, how many people would want to see the extra output or know
> what to do with it? I know people who'd have to be talked through the
> process of reporting a bug, and having to save that output for the report
> might be what makes them decide that it's too much bother. Yes, having that
> parameter can be a good thing, but I don't know if it's useful enough in
> general to be added.
I'm of the opinion that builds logs should show the build
process in more detail rather than less. If someone doesn't
want to see the output, why are they looking through the
build logs of an automatically built kernel module?
Odds are good that most people looking through the logs are
trying to either confirm how it was built or diagnose a
problem. Both cases are helped by including more complete
build output. And both cases outweigh that of the user who
says "I don't like so much output in a file I don't
understand" in my opinion.
I don't have it at hand, but I believe that the Fedora
packaging guidelines include a requirement to use such
options. While that's not mandatory for a package which is
built on end-user systems, the same package source is built
in rpmfusion's build system and they do follow the Fedora
guidelines.
I also feel that anyone who gives up at attaching a file to
a bug report isn't likely to file a bug report worth filing. ;)
--
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?
-- Will Rogers (1879-1935)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
