Mid-Term Report

Rainer Müller raimue at macports.org
Tue Jul 1 05:05:51 PDT 2014

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.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list