[cheesecake-users] output question

Michał Kwiatkowski constant.beta at gmail.com
Sun Jul 23 06:55:40 PDT 2006

On 7/23/06, Grig Gheorghiu <grig.gheorghiu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at the output obtained with Will's patch, I think it's actually
> better and more explanatory for the user to have this information closer to
> the actual sub-index computation (for example seeing the required files
> present/absent close to the required files score). Since this is only the
> case when the verbose flag is specified, I think we can err on the side of
> being more explanatory, as opposed to having a nicer output.

It's really a minor issue, so I guess I will just follow your
suggestions. Our misunderstanding came probably from my assumption
that this extra information will represent hints for package
maintainer what his package is missing and what can be done to make
the score higher. Having this output at the very end would be helpful
because number of things to improve could be grasped on first glance.
With output scattered along the lines of scores it would be obviously
harder. But if this extra output represents overall information on how
the score is computed, it probably won't be bad for it to appear along
the score lines.

> I also like Michal's latest format, with the required files information
> prefixed by [required_files] for example. So maybe we can keep this format,
> but put the information close to the score, as in Will's patch. This way we
> get nicer output, and more explanatory at the same time.

So, to sum up and close this topic: all info should be printed right
after computed score with special prefix representing its source, yes?

 . o .       >>  http://joker.linuxstuff.pl  <<
 . . o   It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong
 o o o   than forgiveness for being right.

More information about the cheesecake-users mailing list