Created attachment 903081 [details] how_it_was_called.txt emerge_--info.txt /var/tmp/portage/dev-libs/protobuf-c-1.5.0-r2/{build-info/,files/,temp/,work/**{.log}} /var/lib/portage/ /etc/portage/ elog * QA Notice: Unrecognized configure options: * * --enable-year2038 * --enable-year2038
Comment on attachment 903081 [details] how_it_was_called.txt emerge_--info.txt /var/tmp/portage/dev-libs/protobuf-c-1.5.0-r2/{build-info/,files/,temp/,work/**{.log}} /var/lib/portage/ /etc/portage/ elog Please try to stuff less information into a single line of the description field when creating attachments: it throws off the bugzilla UI layout. It would also be ideal if you could provide the build log as a separate attachment in plain text when possible. This makes it much easier for maintainers to review it. emerge --info in its own comment or attachment would also help.
(In reply to Mike Gilbert from comment #1) > > Please try to stuff less information into a single line of the description > field when creating attachments: it throws off the bugzilla UI layout. What do you think if in this case use comment segment? > It would also be ideal if you could provide the build log as a separate > attachment in plain text when possible. This makes it much easier for > maintainers to review it. IDK, since build.log from such tarballs from `/var/tmp/portage/pkg-category/pkg-name-version/temp/build.log` has coloring and for me such big files are easier to read sometimes. Though, I don't mind duplicating build.log unless it requires compressing. > emerge --info in its own comment or attachment would also help. Maybe in future I will duplicate this as an attachment...
(In reply to Arniii from comment #2) > What do you think if in this case use comment segment? I think that would probably work better.
