A basic first step might just be to allow cap's sudo() function to
take an array of commands. The expectation of the user would be that
these individual commands would be prepended with sudo and &&'d
together. I realize this only handles one (common) case, but it would
certainly serve me well. The question then moves to how to define a
syntax to properly handle complex chains (||, &&, etc.).
e.g. syntax
cmds = [
"do_something_dangerous",
"do_something_else_dangerous",
"stand_up",
"take_a_bow"
]
sudo(cmds) # --> run("sudo do_something_dangerous && sudo
do_something_else_dangerous && sudo stand_up && sudo take_a_bow")
Regarding ifs, it might be ugly, but you'd just create two separate
arrays......if_true_commands and else_commands.
Just a thought.....I'm actually putting in a helper function for me
right now to do just this. Any thoughts?
-John
On May 21, 12:48 am, Jamis Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the SQL placeholder comparison. That might be a more sane
> approach than some of the options I've been considering.
>
> - Jamis
>
> On May 20, 2008, at 4:36 PM, David Masover wrote:
>
> > Well, one possibility would be to try to parse everything, and be
> > smart:
>
> > if sudo [ -x /path/to/something ]; then cd /path/to; sudo something;
> > fi
>
> > Yes, /usr/bin/[ does exist, at least for me. But this way lies
> > madness -- that 'cd' obviously must be run in some kind of shell to
> > affect the following commands, but the user running the command
> > might not even have access to that path.
>
> > One way would be to make sudo simply stick 'sudo ' on the beginning
> > of a 'run' command. This won't work for everything, but it's simple
> > enough to be predictable, once you know what it does. A 'sudosh'
> > command could be added to make it run a '/bin/sh', also.
>
> > As for 'injecting' sudo, I don't think it gets any simpler than just
> > typing 'sudo' -- maybe with a shell quoting helper, so you could do:
>
> > run "if [ ! -d /path/to/something ]; then sudo #{shellquote('rm -f /
> > path/to/something && umask whatever && mkdir /path/to/something')};
> > fi"
>
> > The idea is that shellquote() would escape anything needed to make
> > it a single literal argument (most likely just wrap it in single
> > quotes and deal with those). Should be nestable. Something like it
> > probably already exists (probably even in Cap), but I haven't looked.
>
> > Of course, that syntax is hideous, but I'm out of ideas... maybe
> > something like SQL placeholder substitution?
>
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Jamis Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > The real sticky one this when you're using conditionals or
> > something, e.g.
>
> > if [ -x /path/to/something ]; then cd /path/to; something; fi
>
> > First of all, you can't do "sudo if [...] ... fi", because "if"
> > isn't a command, it's shell syntax. You either need to do "sudo sh -
> > e '...'" or you do "if [...]; then sudo cd /path/to; sudo something;
> > fi".
>
> > Basically, I don't know that there is a good way to do this
> > generally. Maybe cap just needs to expose a simple way to "inject"
> > sudo into commands...
>
> > - Jamis
>
> > On May 20, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Wes Gamble wrote:
>
> > This could be ugly, but when Cap is presented with "sudo x && y",
> > could that actually be executed as "sudo x && sudo y"?
>
> > I haven't tested it and have no idea if it would work with regard to
> > both running both commands successfully and returning the correct
> > values for success/failure on the first command for short circuiting
> > purposes.
>
> > Wes
> > -------------- Original message from Jamis Buck
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --------------
>
> > >
>
>
> smime.p7s
> 3KDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
