David Terrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please rephrase your rant in the form of a diff to support the extended
functionality in our sed that people have clearly stated they need.
That's easy, just take the code from FreeBSD. (They use -E to
enable extended regular expressions.) However, it
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| And what/who needs this?
|
| Sorry, but, is that question relevant? I mean, shoudn't the ports tree
| have all the programs it can? :S
I don't think that's the goal of the OpenBSD portstree. The portstree
(or better, packaging
Hello!
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:12:21AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| And what/who needs this?
| Sorry, but, is that question relevant? I mean, shoudn't the ports tree
| have all the programs it can? :S
I don't think that's the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hello!
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:12:21AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| And what/who needs this?
| Sorry, but, is that question relevant? I mean, shoudn't the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
| On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| | And what/who needs this?
|
| I do. Not because I want to write non-portable sed, but because I
| often come across scripts I want to use that use GNU sed
* Paul de Weerd [2007-05-15]:
The problem is in the 'we should have everything + the kitchen sink in
the portstree'-attitude. Ports/packages should add functionality. In
the past, software has been removed from the portstree because the
functionality provided by them had been added to the base
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| And what/who needs this?
I do. Not because I want to write non-portable sed, but because I
often come across scripts I want to use that use GNU sed features.
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:35:24PM +0200, Nikolay Sturm wrote:
| * Paul de Weerd [2007-05-15]:
| The problem is in the 'we should have everything + the kitchen sink in
| the portstree'-attitude. Ports/packages should add functionality. In
| the past, software has been removed from the portstree
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:15:25 +0200, Stefan Sperling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| And what/who needs this?
I do. Not because I want to write non-portable sed, but because I
often come across scripts I want to use that use GNU
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 02:08:57PM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
I really don't see the point of your argument.
There is a port and there is a maintainer for it.
Where's your problem?
I am not a developer and in no way speak officially for the
project, but my opinion follows;
The problem is
GNU sed is the Free Software Foundation's version of the sed(1) editor.
GNU sed isn't really a true text editor or text processor. Instead, it
is used to filter text, i.e., it takes text input and performs some
operation (or set of operations) on it and outputs the modified text.
On 5/14/07, Peter Valchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GNU sed is the Free Software Foundation's version of the sed(1) editor.
GNU sed isn't really a true text editor or text processor. Instead, it
is used to filter text, i.e., it takes text input and performs some
operation (or set of
Quoting the DESCR:
GNU sed is the Free Software Foundation's version of the sed(1) editor.
GNU sed isn't really a true text editor or text processor. Instead, it
is used to filter text, i.e., it takes text input and performs some
operation (or set of operations) on it and outputs the
13 matches
Mail list logo
