[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1059509: marked as done (release-notes: script -t is deprecated, should we recommend --log-timing?)



Your message dated Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:14:54 +0200
with message-id <aHpW3lRlgpJ5eltl@per.namespace.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1059509: release-notes: script -t is deprecated, should we recommend --log-timing?
has caused the Debian Bug report #1059509,
regarding release-notes: script -t is deprecated, should we recommend --log-timing?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1059509: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059509
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release-notes
Severity: minor

Note to self. I just stumbled upon $(man script):
"""
       -t[file], --timing[=file]
Output timing data to standard error, or to file when given. This option is deprecated in favour of --log-timing where the file
           argument is not optional.
"""

We use the -t option in the "4.4.1. Recording the session" section, so we should probably revisit that.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:46:52PM +0100, Franco Martelli wrote:
> 
> Could I suggest that the syntax of "script" command in the "4.4.1. Recording
> the session" section ¹  it should be:
> 
>   # script -T ~/upgrade-trixie-step.time -a ~/upgrade-trixie-step.script

Done in https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team/release-notes/-/commit/e645f36b8f3a67ef76e81aab25a56b5473343f96

Thanks,
Chris

--- End Message ---

Reply to: