Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote:
> It appears that some people
> don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current
> portage tree.
I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption, I'm just asking for making 
sure that the assumption is actually backed up with actual presence. The 
sed/gsed naming shouldn't be too hard to achieve and it's already common in 
non-GNU userlands. As we seen for gmake/gawk, it's also a common way to make 
sure for some scripts to use a GNU tool.

> Solution to this is making the GNU tool the default for portage known
> under its non-g-prefixed name, such that the assumptions made in the
> tree hold.
This requires (ab)using /usr/lib/portage/bin .. last time you were against 
that, weren't you?

> Maybe it's just the path of least resistance...  The profit of having a
> tree that works with any implementation of awk, sed, find, xargs, etc.
> is perhaps too small for the actual work and sacrifices needed for it.
About find, the problem is really minimum: with last release GNU find make 
simpler to deal with it as it has a stricter syntax.
The rest, I never asked for people to rewrite all the awk and sed scripts to 
work with BSDish awk and sed, I'm just asking to make sure that the GNU 
versions are called, no matter what, by using gawk and gsed naming. I'm not 
even asking for them to be fixed for all ebuilds, but only for the ones that 
uses subshell not respecting aliases....
Not that difficult, is it?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE