Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4/30/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaak! Wouldn't a sed to use sed be preferred? Why anyone is still
>> > relying on ed is beyond me.
>>
>> I'm really unfamiliar with ed, so I don't know if the ed script would
>> work correctly as an sed script. I'd be willing to try it, though, as
>> this is the first time in a longggg time I can recall needing ed.
>> Going, from memory, I think this sed would fix it
>>
>> sed -i 's/^ed/sed/' configure
>
> I was way off base. Turns out that ed and sed are kind of opposite,
> and some of the script commands didn't completely work in sed. Anyway,
> the sed script I came up with in configure is different enough
> that this fix is patch worthy. Below is the patch. Is it still worth
> it not to have ed as a dependency?
Yes, we don't want the dependency. However, since we are doing a patch
anyway, why not just patch configure to remove the ed script and patch
libtool directly to the final result?
I admit though that the sed is interesting, but most users won't even
look at it unless we put it directly into the book. Without looking it
up, I don't know what the
> +:a
> +$!{
> + N
> + ba
> +}
does. I know the :a is a label and I suspect the N is next and the ba
means jump back to the :a label, but it looks like it does nothing to me.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
