Theo,
The replay feature does not make script(1) re-enter the
commands. It simply replays them on the terminal as if it were a video
[ like "cat typescript" but slower ]. It is particularly useful if
someone wants to replay [ not re-run ] a curses session [ such as a
game or an editing session on vi ].
I ended up writing my own program that has all the features that I
wanted. However, there are a few small changes that I propose for
usr.bin/script/script.c. I have not set up my VM to be able to use
sendbug(1). I sent my patch in a separate email with the following as
subject.
"[PATCH] script(1): Change openpty arguments if stdin is not a tty +
other small changes"
Thank you.
On 8/2/20, Soumendra Ganguly <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stuart,
> Sorry. I should have clarified. It does not re-enter the commands.
> If [-r] is used, then extra timing information is recorded into the
> typescript file, which can later be used by [-p] to replay the session
> [ like a video ] on the terminal. The patch to which I was referring
> enables proper curses playback; therefore, one can now watch an
> editing session on vi being replayed at a later time. While "cat
> typescript | less" suffices in many cases, proper timing information
> is necessary for the playback of curses sessions.
>
> I was not requesting a feature which re-runs the commands; although
> util-linux seems to have a program called "scriptlive" which does
> exactly that.
>
> Thank you.
> Soumendra
>
> On 8/2/20, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What does the replay feature actually do? Does it re-enter the commands
>> or just display the console output (like "cat typescript", but slower)?
>>
>>
>> On 2020/08/01 22:23, Soumendra Ganguly wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
