Great question! One of the key things this would allow us to do, is reduce our current Debug output, by outputting less-important details at Debug2 or Debug3. For example, if we don’t want to see some of the ui_debug messages from our various portgroups - like, say, the numerous messages related to adding port callbacks - we could modify those to output some things at ui_debug2 or ui_debug3.
So if we needed to diagnose precisely what portgroup callbacks are added, those diagnostic messages could be enabled by setting the output level [via the port command] to Debug2 or Debug3. But at the current Debug level, they’d be hidden, making things less verbose. Does that make sense? > On 2021-05-26-W, at 04:39, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On May 24, 2021, at 10:13, Christopher Nielsen wrote: >> >> Has there been any thoughts/interest in implementing another level (or two) >> of debug output, providing more detail than we get at Debug? That would >> allow us to optionally output more diagnostic info in various areas, such as >> our portgroups, without flooding the logs when running at our present Debug >> level. > > I personally find debug mode too verbose already and think we should reduce > the amount of information produced by debug mode. Consider the amount of > information printed by a port that does a batch reinplace -q over every file, > for example, or the amount of information printed about each dependency. > > Can you give specific examples of the type of information you would like to > see in your proposed new output mode?
