#BUG_INTERACTIVE (Re: Bug#422085: Better terminal emulator patch_
I quickly checked scripts on one of my machines and about 1 out of 3 was
interactive. In my opinion it's wrong for reporting tools to risk
hanging if an interactive script doesn't [yet] have that line. It would
be safer to use #NON_INTERACTIVE. But anyway, it would only solve part
of a [very] small problem. And a proper resolution via something
debconf-like would obsolete this solution. It's not worth it IMO to
> 3. I'm definitely opposed to a feature which will pop up a *terminal*
> where a user has to do something before he can proceed reporting a bug.
> Sorry, but this won't happen in rng. I might consider such a thing if it
> could be scripted to use QT or even GTK but a terminal popping up in a
> GUI application is a no-go for me, sorry.
For any script that is non-interactive the terminal will appear and then
disappear once the script is done running. On my system it's barely
noticeable. One thing that I'd be open to is modifying the standard so that
scripts put something like #BUG_INTERACTIVE in the interactive scripts. We
could trivially grep for this phrase, launch a terminal in this one case,
or just run the script and get the output directly if this comment is
absent. I don't know of any interactive bug scripts that currently exist,
so this should be a fairly simple thing to require if people are willing
(I've CC'ed -devel for opinions on this).