On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:25:13PM +0100, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: > Comments? > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136871182828326&w=2 > > Regards, > Mikolaj > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 02:34:47PM +0100, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here is beginning of a build log of random port: > > > > > > ===> Looking for unrar-4.20v1.tgz in $PKG_PATH - not found > > *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:1824 > > '/usr/ports/packages/i386/cache//unrar-4.20v1.tgz': @if /usr/bin/env -i > > PKG_...) > > ===> Checking files for unrar-4.20v1 > > `/usr/ports/distfiles/unrarsrc-4.2.4.tar.gz' is up to date. > > >> (SHA256) unrarsrc-4.2.4.tar.gz: OK > > ===> Verifying specs: c crypto m stdc++ c crypto m stdc++ > > ===> found c.68.0 crypto.22.0 m.8.0 stdc++.55.0 > > ===> Extracting for unrar-4.20v1 > > ===> Patching for unrar-4.20v1 > > ===> Configuring for unrar-4.20v1 > > ===> Building for unrar-4.20v1 > > ... > > > > > > I often find above '*** Error 1 in ...' unnecessary noise when package > > was not found. Below patch mutes those errors. It makes greping for > > errors mutch easier. > > > > Comments?
I definitely vote against it. I really need those errors. You're only thinking of the cases where the error lies in the port, I also have to live with the cases where there is something fishy with the infrastructure. So that's a big NO, NO WAY from me.
