On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:39:06PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > -$SED -re 's/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}
> > > [0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}/-mm-dd hh:mm:ss/'
> > > +gsed -re 's/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}
> > > [0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}/-mm-dd hh:mm:ss/'
> >
> > GNU sed recommend
On 15/02/2022 23.10, Eric Blake wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 02:20:31PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
Instead of failing the iotests if GNU sed is not available (or skipping
them completely in the check-block.sh script), it would be better to
simply skip the bash-based tests that rely on GNU sed,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 02:20:31PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Instead of failing the iotests if GNU sed is not available (or skipping
> them completely in the check-block.sh script), it would be better to
> simply skip the bash-based tests that rely on GNU sed, so that the other
> tests could stil
Instead of failing the iotests if GNU sed is not available (or skipping
them completely in the check-block.sh script), it would be better to
simply skip the bash-based tests that rely on GNU sed, so that the other
tests could still be run. Thus we now explicitely use "gsed" (either as
direct progra
