All, I had spoken with the author of commit 2d180551ef5f2541e22a5eaf90b4efc7aadba914 regarding the status of this commit recently, because I had heard him mention on an irc chat that this was not posix compliant code. I checked the tracker today and was closing bugs to get ready to release 0.9.4. My plan was to speak to the author about fixing this before the release. Since openrc 0.9.4 has already been released, I am asking that this be fixed in the next 24 hours so we can drop 0.9.4 from the tree and release 0.9.5.
Created attachment 290029 [details, diff] init.d-procfs.patch also this grep seem strange to me (the "") grep -hsv -e '^[#;]' -e '^[[:space:]]*$' \ /run/binfmt.d/*.conf \ "/etc"/binfmt.d/*.conf \ ""/usr/lib/binfmt.d/*.conf
Comment on attachment 290029 [details, diff] init.d-procfs.patch has nothing to do with this bug. and comparing generated code hides the actual reasons behind what you're seeing.
After speaking with Christian about this bug, the question seems to come down to whether or not we use extended regular expressions [1]. Christian and I think that using them is the best way to go because they make things easier, but that assumes that all of the systems openrc runs on have tools that support them. Mike, is this a safe assumption? What do you think, should we use EREs or should we rework our code to use BREs? [1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap09.html#tag_09_04
my opinion is to just use the readlink implementation if we're going to use anything here. that should be more robust rather than assuming anything underlying symlink behavior.
<snip> 18:41:20 idl0r | hm, i'm just curious.. wouldn't it make sense to start to extend the BRE (Basic Regular Expressions)? esp. (), ?, +, | would be awesome 19:35:38 twkm | idl0r: the bre was extended, which is why we have ere. 19:38:56 idl0r | twkm: well.. ERE may not be available, right? 19:45:53 twkm | may not? REG_EXTENDED isn't optional. but if you mean, does every utility provide it, then that's correct, they do not (or at least are not required to), e.g., sed uses bre w/additions but not ere. </snip> Just for the record...
All, I'm not quite clear now about what we need to do on this bug. The irc exchange in comment #5 seems to say that ere are required for posix compliance, but all posix compliant utilities are not required to support ere. So, is it safe to just verify that the utility we are using with ERE does support ERE and fix issues with it as they come up?
