On 2014-06-28 10:22, Joshua Root wrote: > 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.
I don't want to tell every user to use a different command now. What would you call it? Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a new binary name for use in batch mode? However, that would be the same change as using a 'port -N' flag... >> 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? No idea, I haven't tried. Shashwat, can you try that and report back? >> Maybe we should also have an option in macports.conf to force >> non-interactive mode? > > A different executable name for interactive operation is simpler. Maybe this is also a misunderstanding about the interactive mode here. This is just asking the user for confirmation on certain actions or asking to make a choice which required multiple invocations of the port command before. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
