Re: [schizo@debian.org: Re: sed or grub-install bug?]

2003-02-19 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
I'm guessing that something changed in ls's output so that that sed expression won't work on the output of ls anymore. I tried it with the latest coreutils, and couldn't see anything that might trigger a bug. And if the 'ls -l' output for symbolic links would change, then it would actually

[schizo@debian.org: Re: sed or grub-install bug?]

2003-02-18 Thread Jason Thomas
- Forwarded message from Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:57:06 -0500 From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Leo Laursen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sed or grub-install bug? +++ sed -n 's%.*- %\1%p' It's a grub bug. The

Re: [schizo@debian.org: Re: sed or grub-install bug?]

2003-02-18 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
At Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:29:59 +1100, Jason Thomas wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:57:06 -0500 From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Leo Laursen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sed or grub-install bug? +++ sed -n 's%.*- %\1%p' It's a grub bug. The

Re: [schizo@debian.org: Re: sed or grub-install bug?]

2003-02-18 Thread Jeremy Katz
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 22:20, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: At Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:29:59 +1100, Jason Thomas wrote: +++ sed -n 's%.*- %\1%p' It's a grub bug. The offending line is: tmp_new_fname=`ls -al $tmp_fname | sed -n 's%.*- %\1%p'` I believe that this