Do not link NO_COLOR to isatty or TERM #1189
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Do not link NO_COLOR to isatty or TERM, in order to allow more explicit control. Also do not foce NO_COLOR for background jobs in AbstractEbuildProcess. The link between NO_COLOR and the --color option is currently preserved, though it could be useful to decouple them, since the user may want to set NO_COLOR just for ebuild processes while keeping color enabled in the portage UI. However, this would drastically change the result of having NO_COLOR set to true in make.conf, so they remain coupled for now. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/918515 Signed-off-by: Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>
zmedico
force-pushed
the
bug_898224_do_not_link_no_color_to_isatty_or_term
branch
from
c1d26d7
to
9b9bd6e
Compare
|
Closing this for now since I assume #1188 is more in alignment with mgorny's wishes. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Do not link NO_COLOR to isatty or TERM, in order to allow more explicit control. Also do not foce NO_COLOR for background jobs in AbstractEbuildProcess.
The link between NO_COLOR and the --color option is currently preserved, though it could be useful to decouple them, since the user may want to set NO_COLOR just for ebuild processes while keeping color enabled in the portage UI. However, this would drastically change the result of having NO_COLOR set to true in make.conf, so they remain coupled for now.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/918515