On 6 June 2015 at 00:45, Gavin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 June 2015 at 00:22, Karl Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Better to upset whatever terminal settings the user had beforehand
>>
>> Clearly, doing the stty on this system is desirable.
>>
>> Doing the stty on all systems is what I'm worried about, i.e.,
>> upsetting things that were fine before.
>>
>> I don't know how we're supposed to check
>> if the shell is broken or not.
>>
>> No need to check if it's broken specifically. It's enough to check if
>> we're on that system (simple uname) and then do the stty or switch to
>> another shell or skip the test.
>
> What if the same broken shell/behaviour exists on other systems, or if
> someone updates the shell to work on that system?
>
> I suppose we could first check for stty, then look for "-echo" in the
> output of stty, and then after a timed out read, look for it again and
> see if it changed, and only then run "stty sane"
Done. You can test it by doing "stty -onlcr" and seeing that that is
still the case after "make check". ("stty onlcr" to reverse it.)
