On 11/15/10 08:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> I like this alternative. Certainly a smaller patch than my proposal for
> guaranteeing a semi-decent sed, and still easy to follow what the sed
> script is doing.
Thanks for reviewing it; I pushed it.
On 11/13/2010 07:16 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:18 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> +if test -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sed; then
>
> I'm leery about using XPG4 sed on Solaris.
> That has its own set of bugs, which in practice can
> bite just as often as the standard 'sed', maybe more
> often. On
On 11/13/2010 08:30 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > I suggest rewriting 'bootstrap' so that it
>> > works even with standard 'sed' on Solaris.
> Is this really worth the effort?
In general, no; but in this particular case, the
sed script is easier to understand that way.
If it's
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I suggest rewriting 'bootstrap' so that it
> works even with standard 'sed' on Solaris.
Is this really worth the effort? For three years already, we have been
documenting in gnulib/DEPENDENCIES that GNU sed is a "recommended"
prerequisite for running gnulib-tool. Hence also a
On 11/13/2010 03:18 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> +if test -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sed; then
I'm leery about using XPG4 sed on Solaris.
That has its own set of bugs, which in practice can
bite just as often as the standard 'sed', maybe more
often. One classic example: it can't handle scripts
containing mo
On 11/13/2010 04:40 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Instead of changing every use of sed to $SED, why don't you define 'sed'
> as a function? Like this:
>
> if test "$SED" != sed; then
> sed ()
> {
> $SED "$@"
> }
> fi
>
> This will
> 1. follow the gnulib philosophy of separatio
Eric Blake wrote:
> -package=`sed -n "$extract_package_name" configure.ac` || exit
> +package=`$SED -n "$extract_package_name" configure.ac` || exit
Instead of changing every use of sed to $SED, why don't you define 'sed'
as a function? Like this:
if test "$SED" != sed; then
sed ()
{
