On Sun, Sep 25, 2005, Thomas Lotterer wrote:
> +Index: texk/dvipsk/texc.script
> +--- texk/dvipsk/texc.script.orig 2005-09-25 22:05:56 +0200
> ++++ texk/dvipsk/texc.script 2005-09-25 22:05:56 +0200
> +@@ -4,9 +4,7 @@
> + # To use it, say
> + # texc.script tex.lpro texc.lpro
> + #
> +-ed $1 <<edscriptend
> +-/% begin code for uncompressed fonts only/d
> +-.,/% end code for uncompressed fonts only/d
> +-.,/% end of code for unpacking compressed fonts/s/% //
> +-w $2
> +-edscriptend
> ++sed <$1 \
> ++-e '/% end code for uncompressed fonts only/,/% end of code for unpacking
> compressed fonts/s/% //' \
> ++-e '/% begin code for uncompressed fonts only/,/end code for uncompressed
> fonts only/d' \
> ++>$2
> +
> @@ .
> [...]
> %option with_x11 no
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
> # build information
> Prefix: %{l_prefix}
> BuildRoot: %{l_buildroot}
> -BuildPreReq: OpenPKG, openpkg >= 20040130, gcc, make, infozip, flex,
> bison, png, zlib
> +BuildPreReq: OpenPKG, openpkg >= 20040130, gcc, make, infozip, flex,
> bison, png, zlib, sed
> PreReq: OpenPKG, openpkg >= 20040130, perl, png, zlib
> %if "%{with_x11}" == "yes"
> BuildPreReq: X11, xaw3d
Cool that the ed(1) dependency is gone. But do we really need our GNU
sed for this sed(1) usage above? I would expect that this functionality
exists in all reasonable sed(1) implementations. So I expected no
dependency to "sed" here...
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [email protected]
