On Dec 7, 2011 6:00 PM, "Neil Bothwick" <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:26:12 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > > Not only did I mean to finish it, I thought I had. Using --jobs>1 sets > > > the quiet-build flag > > > > It also sets it if you don't use more than 1 job. As another poster > > (Hinnerk) already mentioned, the only way to get the old behavior back > > is to use the "--quiet-build=n" option. > > What I said in the text that disappeared from the original post was that > --jobs has always hidden the gcc output, long before the quiet-build > option appeared. The new option only makes emerge behave the same when > -jobs is not set or set to 1. >
Indeed, that change gave me a 'wtf moment' for awhile. I used --jobs, and the one time I purposefully emerge using single job to debug a failure... the output is still MIA. Luckily it wasn't an emergency so I still had the mind to do 'man emerge'. At the very least, such changes that potentially produce a wtf moment should be in the news. I mean, --as-needed has been in the news for quite some time; --quiet-build should also get its own news dispatch. Rgds,
