Hi, To whom the problem belongs, those have to solve it.
Best regards, -- Roberto A. Foglietta +49.176.274.75.661 +39.349.33.30.697 On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 at 04:30, G. Branden Robinson via busybox <[email protected]> wrote: > > [looping in busybox mailing list; Bruno found a sed portability problem] > > Background: > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68601 > > Hi Bruno, > > At 2026-08-06T18:07:55+0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > > I wrote: > > > The reason is that the 'sed' program on this platform (from BusyBox) > > > ignores '-e' options when a '-f' option is present, regardless > > > whether the '-e' options come before or after the '-f' option. > > > > Addendum: This is not the case in general, but is the case with this > > particular '-f' script and these particular '-e' options. > > I didn't experiment to determine the issue, but the following change in > wording from POSIX Issue 4 to Issue 8 might account for the discrepancy. > > Issue 4: > > −f script_file Add the editing commands in the file script_file > to the end of the script. > > Issue 8: > > −f script_file Add the editing commands in the file script_file > to the end of the script of editing commands. > > I wonder what alternative script the Busybox developers have in mind. > > Regards, > Branden
