[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed
From: |
Andreas Jaeger |
Subject: |
Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Dec 2001 17:35:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial Intelligence, i386-suse-linux) |
Ulrich Drepper <address@hidden> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> configure.in has:
>>
>> AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(SED, gsed sed, --version,
>> [GNU sed version \([0-9]*\.[0-9.]*\)],
>> [3.0[2-9]*|3.[1-9]*|[4-9]*],
>> SED=: aux_missing="$aux_missing sed")
>
> I don't know why there is there is the test for gsed (probably copied
> from somewhere else) but the test alone is of course useful without
> using SED. And the point stands: non-GNU seds would never be tested.
I agree, the test is usefull. But I propose to remove the "gsed"
since gsed (and neither SED) is nowhere used and we use sed
everywhere.
> I.e., every release has the good chance of not working on any system
> where sed is not GNU sed despite this change. Appearances of sed in
> Makefiles might be more easily detectable (and can be handled easily).
I agree.
> But sed is used in all kind of scripts. Getting the configuration
> there (the equivalent of the SED variable) requires major changes.
That's what I also thought.
> And fact is that for all the time the code exists and is used this
> never was the problem. So why bother?
Ok, so let's remove the "gsed" from configure.in...
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs address@hidden
private address@hidden
http://www.suse.de/~aj
- 2.2.4, gsed != sed, Toomas Rosin, 2001/12/22
- Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed, Andreas Jaeger, 2001/12/28
- Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/12/28
- Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/12/29
- Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed,
Andreas Jaeger <=
- Re: 2.2.4, gsed != sed, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/12/29