From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 9 16:20:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A74F106566B for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:20:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from adsum.doit.wisc.edu (adsum.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.197.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8338FC12 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:20:22 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from avs-daemon.smtpauth1.wiscmail.wisc.edu by smtpauth1.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) id <0LGC00D02YPYTN00@smtpauth1.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:20:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from anacreon.physics.wisc.edu (anacreon.physics.wisc.edu [128.104.160.176]) by smtpauth1.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0LGC00C9KYPRZT00@smtpauth1.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:20:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:20:15 -0600 From: Nathan Whitehorn In-reply-to: To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-id: <4D52BEBF.2070209@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Report: AuthenticatedSender=yes, SenderIP=128.104.160.176 X-Spam-PmxInfo: Server=avs-13, Version=5.6.0.2009776, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.2.9.160625, SenderIP=128.104.160.176 References: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD powerpc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110104 Thunderbird/3.1.7 Subject: Re: new dialog/libdialog testing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:20:23 -0000 On 02/09/11 10:15, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:28 AM, David Boyd wrote: >> Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has >> uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox. >> >> This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts. >> >> Was prgbox omitted for any particular reason? >> >> I realize that change is inevitable. >> >> Is there a better approach to running a program in a window? >> >> We like many of the new features presented, but are wary of problems down >> the road due to the omission of prgrbox. >> >> I notice that sysinstall uses dialog_prgbox in 8.1-RELEASE. > A good chunk of stuff isn't in the new libdialog. Part of the reason > why is that libodialog is hacked from what it was originally by > various parties and wasn't carried over to the [now supported] > upstream maintainer, or because support for other APIs was deprecated > and abandoned. > > That being said, other APIs should easily fill this gap in a more > generic manner. You may have to specify a few more libdialog API calls > to achieve the same result though. Right (and apologies for breakage). You can get something similar and somewhat more flexible by piping the command into dialog --progressbox. You might also want to look at the tailbox command. -Nathan