Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-22 Thread Bob Hilliard
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bob Hilliard wrote: >> The redirection " 2>&1" isn't portable - it doesn't work with >> /bin/dash. > > Yes it is, and yes it does. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>dash > $ perl -e 'print STDERR "foo\n"' >/dev/null > foo > $ perl -e 'print STDERR "foo\n"' >/dev

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-22 Thread Joey Hess
Bob Hilliard wrote: > The redirection " 2>&1" isn't portable - it doesn't work with > /bin/dash. Yes it is, and yes it does. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>dash $ perl -e 'print STDERR "foo\n"' >/dev/null foo $ perl -e 'print STDERR "foo\n"' >/dev/null 2>&1 $ > I have the impression the back-quotes

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-22 Thread Bob Hilliard
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Care to enlighten us? I didn't see anything outside POSIX sh other than > the use of echo escape sequences. The redirection " 2>&1" isn't portable - it doesn't work with /bin/dash. I have the impression the back-quotes for command redirection aren'

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-21 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 06:28:48PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: > > You could eliminate all of the non-portable stuff in the above by > > changing the single 'echo -e' to 'printf'. This is functionally > > equivalent. > > That isn't the only bashism in

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-21 Thread Bob Hilliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: > You could eliminate all of the non-portable stuff in the above by > changing the single 'echo -e' to 'printf'. This is functionally > equivalent. That isn't the only bashism in that script. Regards, Bob -- _ |_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-21 Thread Bob Proulx
Bob Hilliard wrote: > I suspect the easy availability of script(1) discouraged people > from expending any effort on it. I finally got tired of editing out > all the bogus newlines (^M) from script's output, so I wrote the > following wrapper for apt-get, which I have installed as > /usr/loca

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-21 Thread Bob Hilliard
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Probably both. Has anyone been interested enough to implement it > themselves and send a patch? I suspect the easy availability of script(1) discouraged people from expending any effort on it. I finally got tired of editing out all the bogus newlin

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-20 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:19:31PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > Es geschah am Freitag, 20. Juni 2003 10:58 als Colin Watson schrieb: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:06:05PM +1000, John Habermann wrote: > > > I am just wondering if anyone can tell me how I can set logging in > > > apt-get or

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-20 Thread Christian Schoenebeck
Es geschah am Freitag, 20. Juni 2003 10:58 als Colin Watson schrieb: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:06:05PM +1000, John Habermann wrote: > > I am just wondering if anyone can tell me how I can set logging in > > apt-get or rather dpkg. > > There is no such option, sorry. It's a long-standing wishlist

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-20 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:06:05PM +1000, John Habermann wrote: > I am just wondering if anyone can tell me how I can set logging in > apt-get or rather dpkg. There is no such option, sorry. It's a long-standing wishlist bug. You could run all your apt-get or dpkg sessions inside 'script -a /path

Re: logging apt-get/dpkg activity

2003-06-19 Thread Dominique Fortier
Le ven 20/06/2003 à 00:06, John Habermann a écrit : > Hi > > I am just wondering if anyone can tell me how I can set logging in > apt-get or rather dpkg. I would like to keep track of what packages have > been installed or removed but I can't seem to find any information on > how to turn loggin