Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 12:34:31 +0200 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.org> To: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/sed main.c sed.1 Message-ID: <20020508123431.A53316@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20020508013651.GA28536@FreeBSD.ORG>; from jmallett@FreeBSD.org on Wed, May 08, 2002 at 01:36:53AM %2B0000 References: <20020507184519.GB28857@FreeBSD.ORG> <XFMail.20020507150637.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20020507191959.GA26441@FreeBSD.ORG> <p0511173fb8fe1074d26d@[128.113.24.47]> <20020507232301.GB45271@electricjellyfish.net> <20020507233024.GC20078@FreeBSD.ORG> <p05111742b8fe1be2801c@[128.113.24.47]> <20020508005957.GA28683@FreeBSD.ORG> <20020507182750.A33043@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020508013651.GA28536@FreeBSD.ORG>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
Wow, look at the bikeshed I started just with a little comment. Thanks
for implementing this so quickly, and sorry for all of the flak you've
taken... I was mostly just pointing out that someone was going to
suddenly have to fix several hundred ports when someone else took out
their axe and whipped perl out of -current.
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 01:36:53AM +0000, J. Mallett wrote:
> But unless people will shut the hell up about allowing -i with no argument,
> we cannot achieve that without adding another option one way or the other.
>
> My choices, in order:
> 1) Make -i optionally take an argument, to work like Perl
> 2) Leave it as is, require an argument, even if it's nil
> 3) Add another flag, one way or the other. Either -I which takes
> no argument and acts like '-i ""', or make -I take an
> argument, and -i not.
> 4) Back out -i support at all, and let someone come up with
> a way of doing it that won't hurt the feelings of the
> guidelines for utilities.
My 2c is that -i should take no arguement, and use .orig as the backup
extension, like patch. In ports (the major potential user) this is
being used as a quick replacement for patch, so perl compatibility is
not an issue. This makes it easier to run a script over a port after
patching to tell what the real changes were.
We don't need two options, and I'm pretty sure that people will struggle
to provide a good reason for being able to change the backup extension.
(To anyone who sees that as a challenge: Remember, this is about
removing the need for perl in the base system, and any infrastructure
needed to run bsd.port.mk counts as the base system. It's not about
providing a replacement for perl. That would be stupid.).
Unfortunately this little thread will probably delay merging this back
into -STABLE, which will mean that it can't be implemented in ports,
because we should wait for one release before using new flags...
Thanks again,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020508123431.A53316>