Dieter Baron wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:19:08AM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
>>The dilemma is that the bulk builds don't have a way of logging 
>>important warnings. The first file that comes to mind is of course 
>>${BULKFILESDIR}/${BROKENFILE}, but this one has already format 
>>restrictions and is parsed by other programs.
> 
> 
>   The idea Thomas and I discussed was to introduce a new number to
> indicate non-existent package directories (e. g. -2) and adapt the
> scripts that process that file.

This would not preserve the actual error/warning message to be shown to 
the user. By the way, I don't like the current name and format of the 
global .broken file at all. I'll discuss that in another thread.

>>Summarized: The file structure of the bulk builds is severely broken and 
>>needs to be fixed.
> 
> 
>   Perhaps, but your change is even more fundamentally broken.  As an
> interim, at least log non-existannt package directories in another
> file.  These errors cause packages the user requested not to be built.
> The user should not have to compare lists of requested and built
> packages to find out that happened.

# File where important warnings and error messages are collected during
# the bulk build. The contents of this file is included in the bulk
# build report.
BULK_WARNINGSFILE?=     ${BULKFILESDIR}/.warnings${BULK_ID}

Something like this?

Roland