NEW: textproc/gsed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

NEW: textproc/gsed

Armin Wolfermann
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 modified text.
  Sed is typically used for extracting part of a file using pattern
  matching or substituting multiple occurrences of a string within a file.

  The sed binary is prefixed with the letter g to differentiate it from
  the standard application with the same name.

Tested and in use on i386 for some time. Please test and commit.


gsed.tar.gz (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Peter Valchev
>   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.
>   Sed is typically used for extracting part of a file using pattern
>   matching or substituting multiple occurrences of a string within a file.
>
>   The sed binary is prefixed with the letter g to differentiate it from
>   the standard application with the same name.

And what/who needs this?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Andrés Delfino
On 5/14/07, Peter Valchev <[hidden email]> 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 operations) on it and outputs the modified text.
> >   Sed is typically used for extracting part of a file using pattern
> >   matching or substituting multiple occurrences of a string within a file.
> >
> >   The sed binary is prefixed with the letter g to differentiate it from
> >   the standard application with the same name.
>
> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Paul de Weerd
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 system) should be an easy to use interface to
add functionality to OpenBSD that is missing from the base
installation. If GNU Sed doesn't add anything that the default sed(1)
is missing (I don't know, I think this is what Peter is asking), why
should it be added to the tree ?

I don't speak for the developers, but I doubt it is their goal to
"have all the programs it can" in the portstree. I think there are
other UNIX-like OS'es out there that try to do achieve this. I will
not comment on the usefulness of such goals other than to say that I
kinda like OpenBSD for the way it deals with this sort of thing.

Again, this is not aimed specifically at gsed but at the broad
generalisation that the porstree should contain all the programs it
can.

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Hannah Schroeter
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 goal of the OpenBSD portstree. The portstree
>(or better, packaging system) should be an easy to use interface to
>add functionality to OpenBSD that is missing from the base
>installation. If GNU Sed doesn't add anything that the default sed(1)
>is missing (I don't know, I think this is what Peter is asking), why
>should it be added to the tree ?

There are sed scripts out there that are GNU sed specific. Alas.

But GNU sed has a few features that sed(1) doesn't have.

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Marc Espie-2
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 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 system) should be an easy to use interface to
> >add functionality to OpenBSD that is missing from the base
> >installation. If GNU Sed doesn't add anything that the default sed(1)
> >is missing (I don't know, I think this is what Peter is asking), why
> >should it be added to the tree ?
>
> There are sed scripts out there that are GNU sed specific. Alas.
>
> But GNU sed has a few features that sed(1) doesn't have.

If I remember right, it features in-place editing, which regular sed doesn't
have, and that gnu scripts will tend to abuse...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Stefan Sperling-5
> > >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.

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 don't need KDE, Gnome, XFCE, or Emacs either, and all of those
are in the ports tree. So what.

> If I remember right, it features in-place editing, which regular sed doesn't
> have, and that gnu scripts will tend to abuse...

It also has a -r flag that turns on extended regular expressions.
I don't know if OpenBSD's sed does extended regex, but it does not
have a -r option so scripts that rely on this fail.

--
stefan
http://stsp.name                                         PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Paul de Weerd
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.

So GNU sed adds functionality that doesn't come with the base OS. This
is a reason for porting it.

| 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?

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 OS. There's
no need to add ports that have no additional value other than "hey,
that's one more package we've ported to OpenBSD".

| I don't need KDE, Gnome, XFCE, or Emacs either, and all of those
| are in the ports tree. So what.

You may not need them, but someone else may. They add functionality to
the base OS (functionality that you and me may never use, but there's
no one forcing you to install these ports), so they're there.

| > If I remember right, it features in-place editing, which regular sed doesn't
| > have, and that gnu scripts will tend to abuse...
|
| It also has a -r flag that turns on extended regular expressions.
| I don't know if OpenBSD's sed does extended regex, but it does not
| have a -r option so scripts that rely on this fail.

Well, I'd say that these scripts are non-portable. But, it is a reason
for having the port in the porstree.

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Nikolay Sturm-2
* 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 OS. There's
> no need to add ports that have no additional value other than "hey,
> that's one more package we've ported to OpenBSD".

This is your opinion, the ports tree works differently.

Nikolay

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Darrin Chandler
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-5
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.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere...

> 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?

The problem as I see it is determining if this will be useful, *used*,
and *actively* maintained, vs. ported once and forgotten about.

If it's the former, then great! If it's the latter, then it stinks.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Paul de Weerd
In reply to this post by Nikolay Sturm-2
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 because the
| > functionality provided by them had been added to the base OS. There's
| > no need to add ports that have no additional value other than "hey,
| > that's one more package we've ported to OpenBSD".
|
| This is your opinion, the ports tree works differently.

Yes, i'm sorry i didn't make that more clear. This is how i've seen
stuff being handled so far. I'm not a developer so take what i say
with a sufficiently large dose of skepticism. The actual process is
not known to me ;)

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Eric Furman-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-5
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:15:25 +0200, "Stefan Sperling" <[hidden email]>
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 sed features.
>
> 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 this is a BSD project and unless it is something
that is very important to have (and gsed may very well qualify) the
project should be kept free from as much GPL'ed software as possible.

I feel that one of the goals of the project should be to rid the base
install of all GPL'ed software and eventually the entire ports tree
as well.

I apologize in advance if this starts a BSD/GPL flamewar.
Not my intention. And since this is a "BSD" mailing
list I see no reason it *should* cause one.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

David Terrell
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 this is a BSD project and unless it is something
> that is very important to have (and gsed may very well qualify) the
> project should be kept free from as much GPL'ed software as possible.

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.

--
David Terrell
[hidden email]
((meatspace)) http://meat.net/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW: textproc/gsed

Christian Weisgerber
David Terrell <[hidden email]> 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 is unlikely that
such nonstandard extensions will be included in our sed.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]