From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:55:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Discussion on per-package logging In-Reply-To: <995022ba-f346-09be-8f8b-9e64699cc242@mind.be> References: <20171011105809.2bf05267@windsurf.lan> <995022ba-f346-09be-8f8b-9e64699cc242@mind.be> Message-ID: <20171011115548.7c8172ff@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:05:06 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > For the record (since I'm sure this must have been discussed before), why isn't > the --output-sync option sufficient? Output from parallel make is expected to be > garbled in any parallel build. When a user calls 'make -j', we can expect them > to also provide --output-sync=recurse option. Ah, I indeed forgot to cover the -O/--output-sync option. The drawback with -Orecurse is that you don't see anything happening for the entire duration of a given package build step. Also I'm not sure if the ">>> foo 1.0 Building" message will actually be grouped with the build of that package, which makes the analysis of the build output a bit difficult. I'll do a bit of testing and report. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com