Theo, Thank you for the feedback. I can understand why some of that functionality might be unnecessary if one only needs a hard copy of the terminal session. That is why [-r], [-p] are not applied by default.
My patch for NetBSD script(1) has been accepted now. I will submit a PR to OpenBSD soon. Thank you. Soumendra On 8/1/20, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: > Soumendra Ganguly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, OpenBSD! >> I am using script(1) to complement a program that I am writing. >> However, the current OpenBSD version of script(1) is very old [ based >> on NetBSD script(1) version 1.3 ]. > > First off, it is not old. We don't automatically grab changes from > completely distinct. It has been completely seperate code for over 20 > years. Once in a while, an idea will show up, and get copied. > >> It does not have the [-r] and [-p] >> options that the current NetBSD version [ 1.21 ] does. FreeBSD's >> script(1) also has this functionality; util-linux provides similar >> functionality in the form of script(1)+scriptreplay(1). > > I am horrified by what I see; I could never see myself needing that > type of functionality, since it is so fragile. > > A replay of a sequence of previously issued commands will work fine for > very small steps, but when used for increasingly large missions it > quickly turns into a shitshow. > > The sequences captured will not generally contain error condition > checking along the way. Therefore, input will be continue to be > injected even if a ecommand in the replay-case behaves different. > > This is effectively the same as software which is written without checking > error returns at every step, we encourage all re-useable software to be > written with error checks at every step, why add a subsystem which goes > against the grain? > > I think we should discourage new systems which behave like that. > >> Please consider merging the current NetBSD version into OpenBSD. > > Sorry, that is not how the development process in this project works. >
