Closed Nilix007 closed 8 years ago
Seems pretty reasonable, we could probably accept a patch like that!
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Felix Wiedemann notifications@github.com wrote:
Hey,
I think it's useful to let people pipe data into commands which are run with the subcommand 'run' in the ACI. So, for example, I use this for running complex install scripts inside the ACI with
$ acbuild run sh <<EOF command1 command2 ... EOF
PS: I've managed to enable this feature with the following quick and dirty patch: (which might have some unwanted side-effects elsewhere)
diff --git a/engine/systemdnspawn/systemdnspawn.go b/engine/systemdnspawn/systemdnspawn.go index bd000f9..e249c55 100644 --- a/engine/systemdnspawn/systemdnspawn.go +++ b/engine/systemdnspawn/systemdnspawn.go @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ func (e Engine) Run(command string, args []string, environment types.Environment nspawncmd = append(nspawncmd, args...)
execCmd := exec.Command(nspawncmd[0], nspawncmd[1:]...)
- execCmd.Stdin = os.Stdin execCmd.Stdout = os.Stdout execCmd.Stderr = os.Stderr execCmd.Env = []string{"SYSTEMD_LOG_LEVEL=err"}
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/appc/acbuild/issues/200
I've been debating whether or not to attach stdin since writing the run
command. This seems generally useful. My initial thought was that maybe hide this behind a flag, but my second thought is that I can't think of anything that adding this would break, so let's just add the line as-is.
@Nilix007 want to make a PR for this, or do you just want me to make the changes?
Hey,
I think it's useful to let people pipe data into commands which are run with the subcommand 'run' in the ACI. So, for example, I use this for running complex install scripts inside the ACI with
PS: I've managed to enable this feature with the following quick and dirty patch: (which might have some unwanted side-effects elsewhere)