> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:47:48 +1300 > From: m...@pc-networking-services.com > To: "BLFS Support List" <blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org> > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown > option to `s' > . . > > Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. > > I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. > > Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as > stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % > sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if > it was a successful build or not. >
Christopher, sorry, here's a more-direct answer to your questions. The change that you made, should be all-OK for your build and subsequent use of the software. It would be even better if you changed the 'n/a' to 'Linux >From Scratch' (without the quotes, in each case). Then, any problems that you encounter with the build/use of the software, are likely to be caused by other things, and not this particular change: i.e. the present change is unlikely to have knock-on effects. Some more detail: -------------------------------- I've re-read your original posts, incl your post in reply to Bruce: R617 Bruce Dubbs Fri Feb 14 17:19 104/5109 \ \Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' R622 me@pc-networking-s Fri Feb 14 20:21 177/7924 \ \Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' In that reply, it _sounds_ like you worked around the problem by making the change: == file: <you don't specify explicitly, but sounds like jdk.... Makefile?> old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n%a/g' \ == I.e. you changed 'n/a' to 'n%a' (without the quotes, in both cases). Is that the change you made? If so, then you should be OK. You'd be (even) better, though, to change the 'n/a' to something like 'Linux From Scratch'. And even better, do the recommended LSB config that's at LFS page 'chapter09/theend.html' , and per Fernando's notes in present thread. Note that - if I may say - Bruce was likely meaning to make a slightly different change from what you actually did: it'd normally be meant that you change the _delimiter_ for sed, rather than (in this case) the 'n/a' value itself. Thus (using '%' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's%@@distro_name@@%n/a%g' \ -- or (using '|' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's|@@distro_name@@|n/a|g' \ -- or (using ':' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's:@@distro_name@@:n/a:g' \ -- , and so on. D'you see how, with those non-'/' delimiters for sed, the '/' in the string-value 'n/a' is no longer ambiguous - sed now sees it as part of an ordinary string-value, and doesn't interpret it as a delimiter. Whereas in the original code, the sed-delimiter _is_ '/', and so sed gets confused by the 'n/a' string - sed in that case thinks that the '/' in 'n/a' is somehow a(nother) delimiter character, and so sed gets confused because it now looks like there are four delimiters overall and that the expression is garbled. As noted, what you _seem_ to have done, in your change, is to retain the three '/' delimiters, and change the 'n/a' string-value to 'n%a'; and then things compiled apparently-OK. You could've changed from 'n/a' to 'n_a', or to 'not-applic', or to 'scooby_doo--16', etc, and things'd still work. That's because the new/replacement string-value doesn't contain characters that cause ambiguity in the context. On the other hand, if you took 'n/a' and changed it to, say n\a or n'a or n\\a then you're (more) likely to hit problems, because there are chars there that'll likely cause ambiguity when they're substituted in place of the n/a in that sed expression. In related vein, it's probably prudent to not use 'n%a', in case the '%' causes similar ambiguity &c further down the line. You're probably better - in this case - to avoid any chars that might be subject to such 'special interpretation' by sed/grep/awk/&c&c. Hence partly why it's suggested that you change the 'n/a' to something like 'Linux From Scratch': not only does it contain more-useful info, but it avoids chars like '%' that might get interpreted ambiguously somewhere down the line. -------------------------------- The long-ish chains of content (outputs from greps, snippets of configure logs, &c) in many posts of the present thread, were just folks trying to diagnose where the problem was originating. And then there are sort-of ongoing, & perhaps just-about-to-complete, chains of discussion about how to address the underlying cause of the problem. So apols if/that your particular case - e.g. what does all this mean in practice for your work-around build - was perhaps seeming obscured and neglected by that. hth, akhiezer > Regards, > > Christopher. > -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page