On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > Hello! > > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:12:21AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote: > >| >And what/who needs this? > > >| Sorry, but, is that question relevant? I mean, shoudn't the ports tree > >| have all the programs it can? :S > > >I don't think that's the goal of the OpenBSD portstree. The portstree > >(or better, packaging system) should be an easy to use interface to > >add functionality to OpenBSD that is missing from the base > >installation. If GNU Sed doesn't add anything that the default sed(1) > >is missing (I don't know, I think this is what Peter is asking), why > >should it be added to the tree ? > > There are sed scripts out there that are GNU sed specific. Alas. > > But GNU sed has a few features that sed(1) doesn't have.
If I remember right, it features in-place editing, which regular sed doesn't have, and that gnu scripts will tend to abuse...
