ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>>> ‘--remote-log-file’ allows to get a URL for a build log file on a substitute >>>> server regardless is it built locally. ‘--log-file’ returns always local >>>> build log file. >>> >>> What did you think of having ‘--log-file’ transparently fall back to >>> searching for log files on substitute servers? > > To put it differently: what do you dislike about the current behavior? Suppose package build failed locally. I want to receive a log from a remote server. I could do it manually by: 1. Removing local failed log. 2. ‘wget’, but I need to know a URL. 3. Hydra web interface, which is slow (especially multiple packages). > No no: keep the current behavior, but print something when we’re looking > for a remote log file (currently it silently checks whether the remote > log file is available.) Still not clear to me. If ‘guix --log-file’ checks for a remote log file, then it gets a valid URL to a remote build log file for free, doesn't it? >> I don't think mixing those in one output is good, because for example >> you cannot do like: >> >> diff -u <(guix build --log-file hello) <(guix build --remote-log-file hello) > > I see. I guess I’ve never wanted that, or rather, when I do, I > explicitly wget the remote log file. :-) Could I ask What's your workflow for ‘wget’? > So I guess I’m unconvinced about the need for a separate > ‘--remote-log-file’ option. > > What do people think? Ricardo? Maybe CC him? Or is it a bad etiquette for a mailing list, because he is subscribed? >> As a better approach in addition to ‘--no-substitutes’, maybe we could >> implement ‘--only-substitutes’ (as I remember Nix has it)? Such flag >> will return a remote log file and will avoid building packages locally. > > That could be an option, but that’s much more work (not limited to log > file handling.) Yes, but benefits (especially avoid building packages locally) are worth. If you don't agree with the patch, I'll not complain and will try to work on ‘--only-substitutes’. :-) Oleg.