From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 5 02:14:34 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413E016A46B for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:14:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from tiamat.relinetworks.com (tiamat.relinetworks.com [204.214.92.162]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13ED13C467 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from volatile.chemikals.org (root@r74-193-170-223.bssrcmta01.bscyla.by.dh.suddenlink.net [74.193.170.223] (may be forged)) by tiamat.relinetworks.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lB52EWoG069617; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:14:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from localhost (morganw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by volatile.chemikals.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id lB52EWDl053536; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:14:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:14:32 -0600 (CST) From: Wes Morgan To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20071128013623.GA48799@belle.0lsen.net> <475488D8.2090301@FreeBSD.org> <20071203231312.GA1449@ted.stsp.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 0.99999 (BSF 796 2007-11-08) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to get portinstall to 'shut up' so I can run it in background X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:14:34 -0000 On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Wes Morgan wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >>> Screen also has log functionality. >>> Toggle with: Ctrl+A, then Shift+H >> >> You can also use "script" to capture the output fairly easily. > > So you have to use two different programs, one of which is a port, to > accomplish what nohup will do by itself. :) My point being that a lot of > people seem to think that screen(1) is the answer, no matter what the > question, when often simpler answers exist. > > If you're one of those people, that's fine, I learned a long time ago I'm not > going to change your mind. But I do think it's useful to note that there are > other valid solutions, even if simply for completeness sake. Actually, I was educated on "nohup", so don't consider it a total waste :). I just personally don't start a terminal without also running screen. However, nohup is in the base system, so it is clearly a more available solution.