On 2014-6-28 02:48 , Rainer Müller wrote: > On 2014-06-27 07:47, Joshua Root wrote: >> On 2014-6-27 05:29 , Shashwat Pandey wrote: >>> I am a Google Summer of Code 2014 student working on the 'Interactive >>> Port Command' project for Macports. I have been working for about a >>> month now and would like to show the progress i have made. >> >> Sounds like good work for the most part. One note: >> >>> # Added global flag '-N' for non-interactive invocations. Interactivity >>> is the default behaviour. >> >> This will break people's scripts. If users don't do anything different, >> the behaviour should stay the same. I would provide a different >> executable name for interactive use, but I guess a command line and/or >> config option to make port(1) behave that way would be OK too. > > We have broken the backwards compatibility of the port command multiple > times already by changing strings and its output formats. We don't make > any guarantees for that, do we?
No, but changing a command that never asked for user input to now do so is a much bigger change. You can't even just run something and check the exit code then. > If you redirect the command output or it is not connected to a terminal, > port(1) will automatically behave non-interactively as it did before. OK, that's not as bad. But does that prevent the use of tools like expect? > Maybe we should also have an option in macports.conf to force > non-interactive mode? A different executable name for interactive operation is simpler. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
