On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:28:50PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > Definitely not a fan... > I hate squishing pipes in there.... Why? Due to addmittedly ugly file descriptor handling?
In that regard, I was also wondering whether our new ksh(1) pipefail addition could be of use here to simplify things. > TEST is okay because dpb doesn't handle it so far. Would BUILD_LOGFILE interfere with dpb(1)? I have never used it so far. > I would hate hate hate to see delayed outputs from other parts What do you mean with delayed? tee(1)'s output is unbuffered. > If you want logs while building manually, well, I did superscript and > portslogger a while back Never heard of superscript. portslogger(1) is useful but always requires manual usage - it gets in my way and logs are potentially lost if I forget to start the build with it in the first place. Ideally, I'd like to have logging as built-in part of the framework just like TEST_LOGFILE is, and not be provided through external tools which lay outside of the default PATH - working with logs would then only be a matter of copying/inspecting files *afterwards* if need be, without having to construct `make | some | pipeline' beforehand.
