On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
| > > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| > > >| >And what/who needs this?
|
| I do. Not because I want to write non-portable sed, but because I
| often come across scripts I want to use that use GNU sed features.
So GNU sed adds functionality that doesn't come with the base OS. This
is a reason for porting it.
| I really don't see the point of your argument.
| There is a port and there is a maintainer for it.
| Where's your problem?
The problem is in the 'we should have everything + the kitchen sink in
the portstree'-attitude. Ports/packages should add functionality. In
the past, software has been removed from the portstree because the
functionality provided by them had been added to the base OS. There's
no need to add ports that have no additional value other than "hey,
that's one more package we've ported to OpenBSD".
| I don't need KDE, Gnome, XFCE, or Emacs either, and all of those
| are in the ports tree. So what.
You may not need them, but someone else may. They add functionality to
the base OS (functionality that you and me may never use, but there's
no one forcing you to install these ports), so they're there.
| > If I remember right, it features in-place editing, which regular sed doesn't
| > have, and that gnu scripts will tend to abuse...
|
| It also has a -r flag that turns on extended regular expressions.
| I don't know if OpenBSD's sed does extended regex, but it does not
| have a -r option so scripts that rely on this fail.
Well, I'd say that these scripts are non-portable. But, it is a reason
for having the port in the porstree.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
