Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:40:12AM CET: > There's several other places in autoconf that violate this. [...] > Should we follow our own advice and not use s//\1/?
Busybox is open source, easily fixed and deployed, no? IOW, I reluctantly agree to crippling Autoconf sources for an easily fixed open software, if our workaround isn't too bad, but a bug report to busybox should really be the first step. > (I don't have access to busybox at the moment, so I don't know if > busybox's basename/dirname are adequate enough to avoid the sed > implementation). I don't either, but again, the order in which to do things properly would be to test busybox basename/dirname, then report an upstream bug if any, and only then to install workarounds if necessary. In this particular case, since Vincent reported a successful coreutils configure with busybox sed after the one sed script was fixed, I conclude that basename and dirname must be functional, as both are exercised during the configure script. Thanks, Ralf
