Opened 22 years ago

Closed 21 years ago

#461 closed defect (fixed)

Roll some patches back to being sed's

Reported by: gerard@… Owned by: greg@…
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Book Version: CVS
Severity: normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

After discussing on lfs-dev I've come to agree that some of the patches are best to be sed's, especially when it concerns simple s/foo/bar/ statements.

The following patches are good candidates to be sed's again:

  • Gawk patch
  • Glibc Root/Perl patch
  • Kbd patch
  • Man Manpath patch
  • Man Pager patch
  • Sh-utils Hostname patch

Please note: good candidates. Make a sed, make it look readable. If it looks too complicated or too ugly, don't do it.

Attachments (2)

gawksed.patch (1.5 KB ) - added by billyoc@… 22 years ago.
roll back chapter 6 gawk patch to sed commands.
glibcsed.patch (2.2 KB ) - added by billyoc@… 22 years ago.
roll back glibc root and perl patch to sed commands.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (9)

comment:1 by gerard@…, 22 years ago

Priority: highhighest

by billyoc@…, 22 years ago

Attachment: gawksed.patch added

roll back chapter 6 gawk patch to sed commands.

by billyoc@…, 22 years ago

Attachment: glibcsed.patch added

roll back glibc root and perl patch to sed commands.

comment:2 by gerard@…, 22 years ago

Priority: highestnormal

comment:3 by gerard@…, 21 years ago

I'm having second thoughts on this. Especially now with the patches project in existence, wouldn't we better serve the community keeping things as patches as much as possible? Much easier for people to browse the patches project than reading ever package installation in the book to see if we make any modifications to a package.

Along that same thought that would mean our sed to sysvinit should be turned into a patch as well?

comment:4 by lfsbill@…, 21 years ago

I would be selective about this. We want to leave a few seds of various styles because the exposure offers some educational value. My though is that packages that have a history of relatively frequent change and constantly require *minor* patches would be candidates to leave as seds. Those with less activity and/or tendancy to more complex patching needs could be kept as patches.

The result I would look for would be a reasonable amount of exposure to sed combined with a slight reduction in patch-maintenance workload.

comment:5 by greg@…, 21 years ago

Owner: changed from lfs-book@… to greg@…

The rough consensus on the list was to use sed's where a simple one-liner will achieve the goal. When the sed starts to get complex and is likely to induce typos and/or span multiple lines then use a patch instead.

Looking at the current crop, there are a few candidates. The Manpath and Pager patches for Man being the most obvious. And also possibly the Grub Gcc33 and Gcc Suppress-Libiberty patches.

comment:6 by greg@…, 21 years ago

Status: newassigned

comment:7 by greg@…, 21 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: assignedclosed

Fixes committed for those 4 patches mentioned previously. Closing.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.