| 1 |
I think that most of the sed issues on mac os can be remedied by using |
| 2 |
the 'dosed' command as oppose to using sed directly. The only real major |
| 3 |
hit that the BSD sed takes in comparison to the GNU sed, with regards to |
| 4 |
what ebuilds commonly use, is the -i (in-place) option, which is taken |
| 5 |
care of by using 'dosed' instead of 'sed'. Corrections welcome. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm not saying that supersed is no longer required, but I do propose |
| 8 |
that supersed is not needed on mac os for portage to be happy. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-Hasan |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Stroller wrote: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> On Jul 22, 2004, at 5:34 am, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> does anyone have a reason for why supersed *shouldnt* be removed from the |
| 18 |
>> tree ? afaik, sed-4.x pretty much incorporated most of the 'cool' things |
| 19 |
>> supersed does and at this point, it seems pretty useless |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> There's been mention of `sed` on Gentoo-osx in the last few days. |
| 23 |
> <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-osx&w=2&r=1&s=sed&q=b>. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> It seems that GNU `sed` syntax is widely used in the Portage tree, yet |
| 26 |
> Mac OS is supplied with a BSD version of `sed`. I don't really know what |
| 27 |
> the implications are, or whether this might be a justification for |
| 28 |
> keeping `supersed` about, but thought I might bring it to your attention. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Stroller. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives