> From: John Burrell <john_burr...@hotmail.com> > To: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:24:46 +0000 > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] A couple of command inconsistencies > > > > > > Yes, those points've already been made in your first post, understood, > > and addressed in the reply: IOW, you might want to use e.g.: > > > > -e 's/\(.*\)&&[[:blank:]]*$/\1/' > > > > or even > > > > -e 's/\(.*\)[[:blank:]]*&&[[:blank:]]*$/\1/' > > > > or similar, depending on details of the processing environment - e.g. you > > might need/want sed's '-r' flag also, &/or change the '[[:blank:]]' to > > '[ \t]' (that first char is a single (horizontal-)space char) or to > > '[ ]' (a single horiz-space char and a single tab-char), &c. > > > > Well rather and try and deal with all possible chars after the &&, I've added > the > blank to my script for iptables and ruby. If the editors decide to add more > spaces, > or a tab or whatever after a &&, my script will fail and then I can try and > fix it. >
- but the '[[:blank:]]*' (without the quotes, obviously) deals with the 'problem' once & for all: why would one spend the time to add just a blank to the sed, rather than add the regex ... . But, it's your script, of course. > No loss of life will ensue so 'suck it and see' is a good approach for this > problem. > (Maybe not loss of life, but perhaps loss/waste of time... .) rgds, akh > jb. > > -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
