Re: [Fab-user] Output of local()

[Jeff Forcier]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Sverre Johansen
<address@hidden> wrote:

> And probably you don't want to capture the output of every command, and rather
> make it optional - both for local and run/sudo.
>
> What do you think about adding separate functions for setting variables
> from commands, or having an optional argument that enables this?

I think having an optional argument is the better approach; having a
2nd set of functions is just cluttering the namespace and is almost
never a good idea IMO.

Additionally, I'd argue that capturing is the common case, and that
the argument should be used for *disabling* the capturing in the few
cases that it might cause a problem, such as with the subprocess issue
mentioned. (We should probably also look at trying to handle that
issue generally, too, since you never really know beforehand if your
output is going to go over that 64k limit.)

In terms of getting capturing for local() working at all, have you
looked at how we did it for run()/sudo()? That might give an idea as
to how to both capture and print with local(). Or I might just take a
crack at it myself today, if I can find the time.

Best,
Jeff