Re: Logfiles from build

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:53:15AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
> <address@hidden>
> 
> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:34:38AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >Before any work is done on the central log/ or
> >build-log/ directory, I would really like to have the capability
> >to automatically display the tail of a log-file which did not
> >complete 'make' successfully.
 
> With the exception of lilypond itself, where the warnings seem
> inextricably linked with the progress output, then nothing I am
> doing is aimed at redirecting error output - quite the reverse - I
> now see errors in the build which no-one else sees.

I hate to be a downer, but this not true.

My finger slipped and I deleted your email about fontforge, but
those have been around for ages:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-12/msg00490.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-08/msg00987.html

We even know how to fix them; in 2008, the answer was "compile
with --enable-double".  In fontforge 20110222 we can check the
--version output to make sure that this option was enabled.  But
nobody has stepped forward to offer a patch for configure.in, so
this won't be done, and in another 8-14 months, somebody will
probably ask the same question.

Finding warnings is good, but unless anybody fixes them, you might
as well spend your time watching youtube videos of kittens.  :(
I can already tell that nothing's going to happen to your email
here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00384.html


In keeping with the GOP mentor discussion, (proposal summary)
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_2.html
I feel compelled to warn you that you do not have "a realistic
expectation of how things will work".  I hate to say it, but every
instinct I have from watching lilypond development is screaming at
me that this will end in tears, dissapointment, and/or bitter
recriminations.  I've seen it happen again and again.  :(


> I'd suggest we work down this route, and then consider whether a
> grep of the logfile contents for "warning" and "error" reveals
> anything that needs sorting out.

Another avenue of miscommunication is that, in the context of
make, "error" means "the command exited with a non-zero status
message", while "warning" means "anything else".  (or something
like that)

So when Reinhold and I say "we must not hide any errors in make",
we're not talking about stuff in fontforge, or lilypond saying
"programming error: foo is not bar'd", or anything like that --
we're talking about something which causes *make* to stop the
build process.  It doesn't matter if a program outputs "this is a
serious error, I'm not kidding, pay attention"... in the context
of a *make* discussion, that's (implicitly) not considered an
*error*.


yikes, this is a mess.  You need a mentor (or organizer, or
manager, or devel translator, or whatever we want to call it).
There's just too much "mistranslation" going on.

I guess I'm it, if you're willing.


If you *are* willing, then my first "instruction/guidance" is to
pick ONE aspect of the build process and focus on that.  Do not
spend time on other parts of the build system.  And if there is a
problem with that one aspect, continue working on that until it is
done.

- Graham