Re: [PATCH] Re: [setup] Inaccurate message: See /setup.log.full

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 08:22, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> IDS_MISSING_LOG should be "No log was in use", not "setup.log.full".
>>> It'll be ugly in the output, but at least accurate.
>>
>> "Check No log was in use for details."
>> That's worse than what we have in CVS now.
>
> No it's not, because the current setup code *always* uses a log file
> of the appropriate level. It's a fallback to catch future changes.

Well, at least make it "<no log was in use>" (with the brackets) to make the
message easier to read.

>> How about:
>
> No. I like Igors approach better.
> For yours, we end up with duplicate resources : you should split the
> 'installation incomplete' and the log to check into two separate
> messages.

Then you have to tangle with temporary buffers to combine them.

> Secondly, you've still got getFile unrenamed. Let me clarify this
> point:
> we have a structure for each file we are logging to. getFile should
> return one of those structures - not the name of the file. However, as
> we only care about the name today, getFileName will both not collide
> with getFile, and be clear what it does from the header.

Sure, I wasn't attempting to address this issue.

> Lastly we should be looking at how we pull conditionals out of
> LogFile,
> not inserting them.

I can't see how else to acheive the result I intended without major
restructuring.


Max.