[gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

Hi,
as I've already pointed out to Brad about mozilla-firefox new ebuild, there 
are a few ebuilds in which, for simple regexp replaces, perl is used with 
sintax perl -pi -e expression file.
As perl is not in the core packages, using this requires adding perl to the 
buildtime dependency of the package. This is anyway an useless dependency as 
it isn't needed for something like that.
A good replacement for it is using sed -i -e expression file, which is the 
same thing.

Please also note that using a sintax like that:

sed -e expression file file file -i

just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations (bsdish, 
macos, solaris, ...). -i must be put before any -e!

Please update the erroneous ebuild, as these could make problems when 
gentoo/non-linux-os .

Thanks,
-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[David Morgan]

On 18:06 Mon 28 Mar     , Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote:
> Hi,
> as I've already pointed out to Brad about mozilla-firefox new ebuild, there 
> are a few ebuilds in which, for simple regexp replaces, perl is used with 
> sintax perl -pi -e expression file.
> As perl is not in the core packages, using this requires adding perl to the 
> buildtime dependency of the package. This is anyway an useless dependency as 
> it isn't needed for something like that.
> A good replacement for it is using sed -i -e expression file, which is the 
> same thing.
> 

As of a couple of days ago, these are the packages which had ebuilds
using perl -pi -e:

vmware-workstation
openoffice-bin
openoffice-ximian-bin
openoffice-ximian
openoffice
gnome-pilot
sun-jdk
PerlQt
gtk-perl-glade
gtk-perl
rhide
netcomics-cvs
apache
mod_authenticache
mod_xslt
magic
pam
mozilla-firefox
mozilla

For individual ebuilds go to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh2045/perls and
the above list is available at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh2045/perls2


-----
djm


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Jan Brinkmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:06:17PM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Pettenò wrote:
> Hi,
Hi :)

> As perl is not in the core packages, using this requires adding perl to the 
> buildtime dependency of the package. This is anyway an useless dependency as 
> it isn't needed for something like that.
It looks like perl is in the base system. Take a look into
/usr/portage/profiles/base/packages:

*dev-lang/perl

> A good replacement for it is using sed -i -e expression file, which is the 
> same thing.
> 
> Please also note that using a sintax like that:
> 
> sed -e expression file file file -i
> 
> just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations (bsdish, 
> macos, solaris, ...). -i must be put before any -e!
> 
> Please update the erroneous ebuild, as these could make problems when 
> gentoo/non-linux-os .
> 
But I generally agree that it's not necessary to use perl where sed
is sufficient. :)

-- 
Jan Brinkmann :	Gentoo Developer (Amd64, Java, Sound, Video)
Email:		luckyduck (at) gentoo.org
Web: 		http://the-luckyduck.de
GPG:		gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 0xE38C3BBF

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:06:17 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
| Please also note that using a sintax like that:
| 
| sed -e expression file file file -i
| 
| just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations
| (bsdish,  macos, solaris, ...). -i must be put before any -e!
| 
| Please update the erroneous ebuild, as these could make problems when 
| gentoo/non-linux-os .

Erm. No. Supporting -i is a requirement for any sed that is used by
ebuilds. If your native sed doesn't do it, you must provide a sed alias
to, say, GNU sed when in an ebuild environment. We already went over
that with the osx thing. Switching is infeasible.

Historically, any ebuild using sed -i would have a hard DEPEND upon
GNU sed-4. These were removed when GNU sed-4 became part of the
profiles, but as they're system deps you should consider GNU sed 4 a
requirement for your arch.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

On Monday 28 March 2005 19:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Erm. No. Supporting -i is a requirement for any sed that is used by
> ebuilds.
I'm not saying -i is not supported, just the order in which the parameters 
should be passed is sed -i -e expression file, not sed -e expression -i file.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 810 bytes --]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:43:52 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
| On Monday 28 March 2005 19:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Erm. No. Supporting -i is a requirement for any sed that is used by
| > ebuilds.
| I'm not saying -i is not supported, just the order in which the
| parameters  should be passed is sed -i -e expression file, not sed -e
| expression -i file.

Ya. Well if you're trying to get away with that, saying that $other
doesn't support it probably isn't the best way to go. Mention that POSIX
requires that all options come before non-options instead and you might
get somewhere :)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Daniel Ostrow]

The issue isn't that the syntax has to be sed -i -e <pattern> <file> not
sed -e <pattern> -i <file>. Note that -i is supported it just MUST
preceed any -e's.

--Dan

On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 18:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:06:17 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
> <flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
> | Please also note that using a sintax like that:
> | 
> | sed -e expression file file file -i
> | 
> | just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations
> | (bsdish,  macos, solaris, ...). -i must be put before any -e!
> | 
> | Please update the erroneous ebuild, as these could make problems when 
> | gentoo/non-linux-os .
> 
> Erm. No. Supporting -i is a requirement for any sed that is used by
> ebuilds. If your native sed doesn't do it, you must provide a sed alias
> to, say, GNU sed when in an ebuild environment. We already went over
> that with the osx thing. Switching is infeasible.
> 
> Historically, any ebuild using sed -i would have a hard DEPEND upon
> GNU sed-4. These were removed when GNU sed-4 became part of the
> profiles, but as they're system deps you should consider GNU sed 4 a
> requirement for your arch.
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Hasan Khalil]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Mar 28, 2005, at 11:06, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:

> just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations 
> (bsdish,
> macos, solaris, ...)

We actually install a 'gsed' binary, and alias sed=gsed in our profile 
bashrc. I'm not sure how the rest of the bsd/solaris/etc people do it, 
just speaking for the Mac OS X guys/girls.

- --
Hasan Khalil
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X

PGP Key: 0x707B8F18 on pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCSEWFzsotBnB7jxgRAj88AJ0QWUhsKf8G2t6WRJW9Hsf+qZbvFACgrKBc
ucjkjzbj79H0RDjrIOnChfM=
=pivm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 28 March 2005 12:51 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ya. Well if you're trying to get away with that, saying that $other
> doesn't support it probably isn't the best way to go. Mention that POSIX
> requires that all options come before non-options instead and you might
> get somewhere :)

s/POSIX/SuSv3/ and you'll get even more people to listen to you :)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Aaron Walker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:06:17 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Petten�"
> <flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
> | Please also note that using a sintax like that:
> | 
> | sed -e expression file file file -i
> | 
> | just works on gsed, but doesn't work with other sed implementations
> | (bsdish,  macos, solaris, ...). -i must be put before any -e!
> | 
> | Please update the erroneous ebuild, as these could make problems when 
> | gentoo/non-linux-os .
> 
> Erm. No. Supporting -i is a requirement for any sed that is used by
> ebuilds. If your native sed doesn't do it, you must provide a sed alias
> to, say, GNU sed when in an ebuild environment. We already went over
> that with the osx thing. Switching is infeasible.
> 
> Historically, any ebuild using sed -i would have a hard DEPEND upon
> GNU sed-4. These were removed when GNU sed-4 became part of the
> profiles, but as they're system deps you should consider GNU sed 4 a
> requirement for your arch.
> 

FYI Ciaran and Diego, sed is aliased to gsed on BSD.

- --
Reffreshed by a breeeff bleckuoot, I gut tu my feet und vent next duur.
Bork Bork Bork!
- -- Merteen Emees, _Muney_

Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCSOB9C3poscuANHARAiFfAJ9mluqYioRSFNAdYAnPZi58mYJcCQCeJBQN
iXr9KN6LWymB0WJ6KAmQN9E=
=2L+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 06:58, Aaron Walker wrote:
> FYI Ciaran and Diego, sed is aliased to gsed on BSD.
I know, but this is, imho, an ugly workaround :)
As sed is quite standard, a good solution could be having portage use sed in 
the standard way, so that the alias is not needed anymore.
It's a long shot, but when all the calls of sed will be standard, we could 
drop dependence on gsed and use it as a virtual package.. this will drop a 
package both on *bsd and osx.

As nothing could be considered a regression in moving sed to standard 
(argument disposition is just a little change, also other changes needed, for 
example grouping similar regexp in a single script, are just minimal 
changes), all the gsed functions used by portage are available on normal sed, 
and normal sed syntax is understood by gsed, having not to depend on gnu sed 
is something useful, from my point of view.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:23:55 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
| On Tuesday 29 March 2005 06:58, Aaron Walker wrote:
| > FYI Ciaran and Diego, sed is aliased to gsed on BSD.
| I know, but this is, imho, an ugly workaround :)
| As sed is quite standard, a good solution could be having portage use
| sed in  the standard way, so that the alias is not needed anymore.

sed is a standard (POSIX/SuS). Unfortunately, a sed which only follows
the standard is a pain in the ass to work with because it supports so
little, hence the decision that was made a while back to standardise on
GNU sed 4.

This isn't like find or tar or similar, where switching GNU syntax to
POSIX is pretty trivial. There are a *lot* of extensions in GNU sed, and
we use them.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 18:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This isn't like find or tar or similar, where switching GNU syntax to
> POSIX is pretty trivial. There are a *lot* of extensions in GNU sed, and
> we use them.
I haven't saw so much of these extension in the ebuilds themselves..
Probably is needed for many other scripts, but still using the standard posix 
syntax when gnu's one is not needed could be helpful.
Also iirc bsdish sed has its own extensions.. if they are compatible could be 
used.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:13:24 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
| On Tuesday 29 March 2005 18:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > This isn't like find or tar or similar, where switching GNU syntax
| > to POSIX is pretty trivial. There are a *lot* of extensions in GNU
| > sed, and we use them.
| I haven't saw so much of these extension in the ebuilds themselves..
| Probably is needed for many other scripts, but still using the
| standard posix  syntax when gnu's one is not needed could be helpful.

*shrug* I looked into this back when the issue first arose with the
ppc-macos port. I and several others worked out that it'd be a heck of a
lot of effort for virtually no gain on the sed issue (this isn't the
case for most other core apps) -- after all, isn't the point of
Gentoo/blah to replace a lot of the lame blah-provided tools with
something better?

| Also iirc bsdish sed has its own extensions.. if they are compatible
| could be  used.

Well, see... If these extensions are sufficient to cover everything in
the tree and everything that is ever likely to be in the tree, then
there isn't a problem. I strongly suspect that this won't be the case.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Stephen Bennett]

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 17:23 +0200, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 March 2005 06:58, Aaron Walker wrote:
> > FYI Ciaran and Diego, sed is aliased to gsed on BSD.
> I know, but this is, imho, an ugly workaround :)

It's an ugly workaround, and one that i'd like to remove if possible.
Right now that's a fairly big 'if', but one possible way to do it
suggests itself:

- Modify the sed ebuild to install a gsed -> sed symlink on GNU systems.
- Fix sed usages in the tree where that's practical / easy (such as -i /
-e argument ordering). Otherwise, explicitly call gsed if we need GNU
extensions that aren't present in BSD / others.
- Remove the alias in non-gnu systems' profile.bashrcs.

As ciaranm said earlier, GNU sed does have a lot of useful extensions;
however BSD sed (for example) supports most of them, and I can't help
but feel it'd be nice to be able to use a platform's native sed wherever
possible. The above scheme is just what seems like the obvious solution
that shouldn't affect GNU systems too much, but lets us use native apps
where possible. Where those native apps suck too much then those
profiles can just keep the gsed alias.

At the moment, this is just a random thought that occurred and got
written down, so don't be surprised if I've overlooked something.

Any comments? Suggestions, flames? (Except from ciaranm, of course...)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 20:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I and several others worked out that it'd be a heck of a
> lot of effort for virtually no gain on the sed issue
Well.. having new sed inserted in the code as standard calls is not "a lot of 
effort" :)
Main problem was with perl, for me.

And if someone is editing an ebuild with a wrong sed call, fixing it is not a 
lot of effort.

We just need to make this known, else anybody don't known how to handle 
something like this :)

Anyway, I'm on the same tune of Stephen :)

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 435 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:16:43 +0000 Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Any comments? Suggestions, flames? (Except from ciaranm, of course...)

Oh, I agree with what you're saying in theory... Or at least I do if the
*BSD sed isn't as crappy as the macos one.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Luca Barbato]

Stephen Bennett wrote:
>
> Any comments? Suggestions, flames? (Except from ciaranm, of course...) 
I'd like to avoid gsed symlinks as much as possible.

If GNU sed is better than the one provided by the system and the
provided one doesn't have other extensions not covered by GNU sed then
the simplest and better solution is replace the native with the improved.

on other cases you may need to consider if keep yourself compatible with
the previous system is good and what users may need or completely
unnecessary (as for the macos-ppc port IMHO)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer		Gentoo/PPC Operational Manager
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 23:08, Luca Barbato wrote:
> If GNU sed is better than the one provided by the system and the
> provided one doesn't have other extensions not covered by GNU sed then
> the simplest and better solution is replace the native with the improved.
I don't like to replace system utilities when they are different from the GNU 
ones. So i don't like to replace tar with gnu tar, sed with gnu sed, and so 
on, because they are not completely compatible.
If gsed was only a super-set of sed, it could be possible, but it isn't.
Scripts may rely on the original behaviour.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:08:54PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Any comments? Suggestions, flames? (Except from ciaranm, of course...) 
> I'd like to avoid gsed symlinks as much as possible.
> 
> If GNU sed is better than the one provided by the system and the
> provided one doesn't have other extensions not covered by GNU sed then
> the simplest and better solution is replace the native with the improved.
> 
> on other cases you may need to consider if keep yourself compatible with
> the previous system is good and what users may need or completely
> unnecessary (as for the macos-ppc port IMHO)
Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering 
portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it 
isn't on osx.

It's the secondary manager.  So it shouldn't be stomping on the toes 
of what exists already unless absolutely required (shifting these 
utilities into a seperate directory, and abusing the path or alising 
as they do already is saner IMHO).

Consider the case of backing out portage/gentoo when it's the 
secondary pkg manager; worst case, a few empty dirs and configs get 
left.  Should still be the same base system it was prior to the gentoo 
experiment though...
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Luca Barbato]

Brian Harring wrote:
> Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering 
> portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it 
> isn't on osx.
If a tool is broken you change it, the apple toolchain and probably
userspace could enjoy some improvements.
> 
> It's the secondary manager.  So it shouldn't be stomping on the toes 
> of what exists already unless absolutely required (shifting these 
> utilities into a seperate directory, and abusing the path or alising 
> as they do already is saner IMHO).
That's ok, my idea of replacement could be done just switching the paths
and segregating the bogus components.
> 
> Consider the case of backing out portage/gentoo when it's the 
> secondary pkg manager; worst case, a few empty dirs and configs get 
> left.  Should still be the same base system it was prior to the gentoo 
> experiment though...
I think everybody agrees about that.

> ~brian
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Stroller]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:33 am, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering
>> portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it
>> isn't on osx.
> If a tool is broken you change it, the apple toolchain and probably
> userspace could enjoy some improvements.

Do you actually use OS X?

This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac 
everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard tools, 
many of which are provided, just like on any other *NIX. This is a case 
where the use of Gentoo would make compiling packages easier & more 
convenient for OS X users, and Gentoo prefers a non-standard tool; the 
Apple install is not "broken" and many people would not consider 
messing with it to be beneficial.

Stroller.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:22:49AM +0100, Stroller wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:33 am, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >Brian Harring wrote:
> >>Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering
> >>portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it
> >>isn't on osx.
> >If a tool is broken you change it, the apple toolchain and probably
> >userspace could enjoy some improvements.
> 
> Do you actually use OS X?
> 
> This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac 
> everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard tools, 
> many of which are provided, just like on any other *NIX. This is a case 
> where the use of Gentoo would make compiling packages easier & more 
> convenient for OS X users, and Gentoo prefers a non-standard tool; the 
> Apple install is not "broken" and many people would not consider 
> messing with it to be beneficial.

While I'm sure I'm going to get shot by the various people who label 
the osx toolchain as broken... well.

tough cookies.

One thing aparently ignored is the implication of my earlier 
"portage is the secondary manager comment"- the logic of just flat 
out replacing osx binaries/libs with gentoo replacements --will--
result in one utterly screwed up system when the user upgrades from 
10.3 to 10.4.

You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, 
and nor will we most likely.   That is why we can't go replacing 
whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is 
secondary.

[1] Yes, exceptions occur.  Replacing sed (which works in the context 
of the osx os) because we label it as deficient doesn't qualify, nor 
despite my hatred of it, does replacing libtoolize with a gnu equiv 
that sucks substantially less qualify.
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:22:49 +0100 Stroller
<stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
| This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X

The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory provider
of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 531 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, 
| and nor will we most likely.   That is why we can't go replacing 
| whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is 
| secondary.

Then we can't support portage as a secondary package manager.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, 
> | and nor will we most likely.   That is why we can't go replacing 
> | whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is 
> | secondary.
> 
> Then we can't support portage as a secondary package manager.
Well, since you say so... :P

One note, stating that gentoo osx no longer functions with portage as 
a secondary pkg manager still doesn't do jack for addressing the 10.3 
-> 10.4 issue... so really, it still is secondary.
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory provider
> of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
Well osx's sed is just posix sed, exactly the same of bsd sed.
We depends on gsed for things which, imho, could be done using posix sed.
Mainly the position of -i param, or the douple -e (which could be merged into 
a single expression).
Probably both osx sed and bsd sed could be used without a bit of a trouble for 
portage purposes, with some tweaks here and there.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Alec Warner]

Brian Harring wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
>>wrote:
>>| You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, 
>>| and nor will we most likely.   That is why we can't go replacing 
>>| whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is 
>>| secondary.
>>
>>Then we can't support portage as a secondary package manager.
>>    
>>
>Well, since you say so... :P
>
>One note, stating that gentoo osx no longer functions with portage as 
>a secondary pkg manager still doesn't do jack for addressing the 10.3 
>-> 10.4 issue... so really, it still is secondary.
>~brian
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>  
>
We have no control over what Apple will do for a 10.3 -> 10.4 upgrade 
which is why IMHO the smokes and mirrors with paths is the best option.  
You can't go replacing primary OSX files with GNU ones and expect 
everything to be fine when OSX can fex. overwrite GNU sed with it's own 
version upon upgrade, or security release or whatnot.  Then the user is 
screwed.  I would expect similar behavior on BSD.  Portage is not the 
primary handler of the system and it shouldn't try to be. 
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:31:33 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<flameeyes@users.berlios.de> wrote:
| On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory
| > provider of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
| Well osx's sed is just posix sed, exactly the same of bsd sed.
| We depends on gsed for things which, imho, could be done using posix
| sed. Mainly the position of -i param, or the douple -e (which could be
| merged into  a single expression).
| Probably both osx sed and bsd sed could be used without a bit of a
| trouble for  portage purposes, with some tweaks here and there.

OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX cannot
PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:36:56AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> We have no control over what Apple will do for a 10.3 -> 10.4 upgrade 
> which is why IMHO the smokes and mirrors with paths is the best option.  
> You can't go replacing primary OSX files with GNU ones and expect 
> everything to be fine when OSX can fex. overwrite GNU sed with it's own 
> version upon upgrade, or security release or whatnot.  Then the user is 
> screwed.  I would expect similar behavior on BSD.  Portage is not the 
> primary handler of the system and it shouldn't try to be. 

Phrased much less sarcastically then I did, but yeah, agreed.

Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just 
stomps whatever the hell it wants.
This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 478 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just 
| stomps whatever the hell it wants.
| This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.

Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some point...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:51:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just 
> | stomps whatever the hell it wants.
> | This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
> 
> Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some point...
Nonsense being what, the notion of replacing utilites, gentoo/osx, 
collision-protect, or just a general "please shut up" snipe? :)

And yes, I'm aware of the previous sed discussion.  This re-flamed 
due to the question raised of just flat out replacing sed instead 
of suffering gsed type hacks, which isn't viable as people have 
pointed out.
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:51:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just 
> | stomps whatever the hell it wants.
> | This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
> 
> Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some point...

So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
is a portage port for macosx, so why not give that a go?
If portage did any harm to his current beloved working macosx
system, and was difficult to get rid of again, would you expect
him to move to gentoo/ppc at some stage? I wouldn't.

When a friend of mine tried portage on macosx I was surprised
that things were being installed into /, not into some extra
portage directory as is common practice with *BSD ports and even
3rd party pkg managers for macosx, like fink. I suspect this has been
discussed in length before and that there were some good reasons
for this, imho, not very smart move.

All people I know who use macosx also use fink, not portage...
-- 
stefan                                               PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:15:23 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > | This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
| > 
| > Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some point...
|
| Nonsense being what, the notion of replacing utilites, gentoo/osx, 
| collision-protect, or just a general "please shut up" snipe? :)

Nonsense being the collision-protect-enabled profiles.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:17 am, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> All people I know who use macosx also use fink, not portage...

what does this have to do with anything ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:17:38 +0200 Stefan Sperling <stefan@binarchy.net>
wrote:
| So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
| away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
| is a portage port for macosx, so why not give that a go?

If he's not prepared to install Gentoo (OSX or Linux) properly, he
should use Fink instead. Supporting half-arsed partial installs is far
too much work -- the tree just wasn't designed for it.

Oh, and don't even bother mentioning pathspec until you have a sane
implementation or at least some non-marketing design docs, k tnx bye.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] portage and operating from a non / prefix\x0f; was: perl, sed and non-gsed

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:24:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:17:38 +0200 Stefan Sperling <stefan@binarchy.net>
> wrote:
> | So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
> | away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
> | is a portage port for macosx, so why not give that a go?
> 
> If he's not prepared to install Gentoo (OSX or Linux) properly, he
> should use Fink instead. Supporting half-arsed partial installs is far
> too much work -- the tree just wasn't designed for it.
> 
> Oh, and don't even bother mentioning pathspec until you have a sane
> implementation or at least some non-marketing design docs, k tnx bye.
What the hell was the intention of pathspec anyways?  
Is it just a matter of installing to a seperate prefix?  If so, 
anyone who desires it, please look at 87877, 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87877
with the work provided by Michael Haubenwallner (haubi).  
~brian
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:24:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:17:38 +0200 Stefan Sperling <stefan@binarchy.net>
> wrote:
> | So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
> | away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
> | is a portage port for macosx, so why not give that a go?
> 
> If he's not prepared to install Gentoo (OSX or Linux) properly, he
> should use Fink instead. Supporting half-arsed partial installs is far
> too much work -- the tree just wasn't designed for it.

I see, so the idea behind portage on macosx is not that it provides
an addon for installing additional packages, but to have a mixed
gentoo/macosx system. The problem I see here is that users basically
use a system provided by two independend vendors (apple and gentoo),
with about zero communication between the two...
But if that's the design, so be it. I'm not working on this anyway,
nor am I using it, so I personally don't care :)
-- 
stefan                                               PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] portage and operating from a non / prefix\x0f; was: perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:36:46 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| What the hell was the intention of pathspec anyways?  

I always thought that the intention of pathspec was to get academic
credits of some kind.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:23:33AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:17 am, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > All people I know who use macosx also use fink, not portage...
> 
> what does this have to do with anything ?

well, considering I know very little people
running macosx, not much actually :)
you caught me, feel free to delete that line.
-- 
stefan                                               PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Luca Barbato]

Stroller wrote:
> Do you actually use OS X?
When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
> 
> This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac
> everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard tools,
gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non standard.

lu

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:17:29 +0200 Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Stroller wrote:
| > Do you actually use OS X?
| When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
| > 
| > This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac
| > everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard
| > tools,
| gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non
| standard.

and broken.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:17, Luca Barbato wrote:
> gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non standard.
Actually, pure gcc on OSX is broken. Just try to build yourself a vanilla gcc 
and try it with some C++ lib, it will fail because it needs a fix which is 
nog going to be applied upstream i don't know why.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Luca Barbato]

Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:17, Luca Barbato wrote:
> 
>>gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non standard.
> 
> Actually, pure gcc on OSX is broken. Just try to build yourself a vanilla gcc 
> and try it with some C++ lib, it will fail because it needs a fix which is 
> nog going to be applied upstream i don't know why.
> 
last time I checked the maintree gcc has the fix for the 'consider
whatever .h as extern "C" ' ancient workaround, that now breaks C++
templates. the standard gcc provided by apple or the gcc from darwin
branch not.

lu

PS: once kito'll be back probably we could figure out how to fix the
issue and eventually have a working toolchain (overlayed probably) and
with a gcc-config, I do hope.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 605 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:39, Luca Barbato wrote:
> last time I checked the maintree gcc has the fix for the 'consider
> whatever .h as extern "C" ' ancient workaround, that now breaks C++
> templates. the standard gcc provided by apple or the gcc from darwin
> branch not.
Well, I've tried that with GCC 3.4.1 and standard GCC on MacOSX 10.3 when 
3.4.1 was released.
Vanilla GCC didn't work, MacOSX's did.

I don't know how that was handled after 3.4.1, because I removed it and moved 
using standard MacOSX's one.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Brian Harring wrote:

> [1] Yes, exceptions occur.  Replacing sed (which works in the context
> of the osx os) because we label it as deficient doesn't qualify, nor
> despite my hatred of it, does replacing libtoolize with a gnu equiv
> that sucks substantially less qualify.

In the cases where a particular tool is truly inadequate our precedence 
has been to install a second version of the tool under a prefixed name 
(as with sed). In terms of libtoolize, Apple provides "glibtoolize" 
which AFAIK is the gnu equivalent. As far as I've seen it "sucks less" 
enough to be workable.

The point is that in cases where tools just won't work for our purposes 
there are workarounds that do not involve overwriting the native tools 
that are expected by the system to be there.

- --Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCVWSVNJ9STR9DbYERAu4XAJwKFGXNmw4MCLp9p9Dluw/OlJO6mgCfWZA9
ZsH5hY/AdvZunVvIpKdfNVk=
=k1DU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:31 AM, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:

> On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory 
>> provider
>> of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
> Well osx's sed is just posix sed, exactly the same of bsd sed.
> We depends on gsed for things which, imho, could be done using posix 
> sed.
> Mainly the position of -i param, or the douple -e (which could be 
> merged into
> a single expression).
> Probably both osx sed and bsd sed could be used without a bit of a 
> trouble for
> portage purposes, with some tweaks here and there.

Interesting. I could've sworn the OSX sed didn't have the "-i" option, 
and it isn't in the manpage, but I just tried it and low and behold it 
exists now. Even so, it makes me nervous to depend on Apple not to 
change the available sed options in order to keep a working portage. 
gsed really isn't all that much trouble, and you can unmerge it if you 
decide that the portage experiment didn't work out for you.

- --Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCVWW+NJ9STR9DbYERAm3DAKDPSFfaY9DsRr9PTuvbP5nvT/J+YwCgjxUi
jqVpH1cCZ91RwM/QBI6fLlw=
=Zc2W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX cannot
> PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.

Good! I'm not going insane! I KNEW it didn't used to do "-i". It 
definitely does now though. Interestingly, it creates a $file-e backup 
by default when you try a "sed -i -e".

- --Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD4DBQFCVWalNJ9STR9DbYERApjEAJ9IAdWQ0CIo0eqzKFK8ApxuCUt5bQCWN7Zn
lZCJGwef0zdiEjDskQuSzw==
=xB+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 680 bytes --]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:58:13 -0400 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX
| > cannot PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.
| 
| Good! I'm not going insane! I KNEW it didn't used to do "-i". It 
| definitely does now though. Interestingly, it creates a $file-e backup
| by default when you try a "sed -i -e".

-i -e or -ie? -ie to sed is wrong and does slightly strange stuff with
GNU sed too.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:

> Stroller wrote:
>> Do you actually use OS X?
> When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
>>
>> This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac
>> everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard 
>> tools,
> gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non 
> standard.

And if you want to you can replace them (see the progressive profile). 
At your own risk of course. Personally, I run vim7 from portage. The 
problem is that we simply cannot guarantee that Apple will play nice 
with us stomping on their core system tools, therefore the default 
behavior cannot be to overwrite these packages.

- --Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCVWfqNJ9STR9DbYERArY1AJ44WC9YPNyZfPpVf+behv2VoRiF+gCeIEVT
gEjcJL/yg+dXeHYP7hspTHQ=
=7LJQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Luca Barbato]

Lina Pezzella wrote:
> 
> And if you want to you can replace them (see the progressive profile).
> At your own risk of course. Personally, I run vim7 from portage. The
> problem is that we simply cannot guarantee that Apple will play nice
> with us stomping on their core system tools, therefore the default
> behavior cannot be to overwrite these packages.
We definitely need a way to have fs overlay.
> 
> --Lina Pezzella
> Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
> Gentoo for Mac OS X

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:58:13 -0400 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX
> | > cannot PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.
> |
> | Good! I'm not going insane! I KNEW it didn't used to do "-i". It
> | definitely does now though. Interestingly, it creates a $file-e 
> backup
> | by default when you try a "sed -i -e".
>
> -i -e or -ie? -ie to sed is wrong and does slightly strange stuff with
> GNU sed too.
>

- -i -e

> -- 
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCVZ7HNJ9STR9DbYERAkY8AJ9fTrZxTylib+Ugzzbnpq7MBzxHwgCfaA2L
K6rmz8qY18/hRhx4AufePZ8=
=oXPa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl, sed and non-gsed

[Lina Pezzella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> We definitely need a way to have fs overlay.

I definitely won't complain if someone wants to implement it and throw 
it in portage.

Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCVZ7+NJ9STR9DbYERAprvAJ9ANio1A3lyUA4u1wtToPIJgF3eFwCfYd9X
FUKrgJTZautHwyxIMFvtVfc=
=HfFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list