Summary: | sys-apps/openrc: use of extended regular expressions with "sed" may not be supported on some systems | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | William Hubbs <williamh> |
Component: | OpenRC | Assignee: | OpenRC Team <openrc> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | init.d-procfs.patch |
Description
William Hubbs
2011-10-17 03:25:29 UTC
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? |