On 30/01/13 12:38, Andrew Gregory wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Gregory <[email protected]> > --- > > I think I'm alone in wanting to remove the isatty check, but we can at least > document it. >
For the record, this is the old discussion, which I am not entirely convinced came to a conclusion. Is there some standard - not necessarily a real standard but perhaps in the GNU coding conventions - that we can use to justify either behaviour. [1] https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/720/ > doc/pacman.8.txt | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.txt b/doc/pacman.8.txt > index de28b9c..358d506 100644 > --- a/doc/pacman.8.txt > +++ b/doc/pacman.8.txt > @@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ front ends to be written (for instance, a GUI front end). > Invoking pacman involves specifying an operation with any potential options > and > targets to operate on. A 'target' is usually a package name, filename, URL, > or > a search string. Targets can be provided as command line arguments. > -Additionally, if a single dash (-) is passed as an argument, targets will be > -read from stdin. > +Additionally, if stdin is not from a terminal and a single dash (-) is passed > +as an argument, targets will be read from stdin. > > > Operations >
