Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: sed _s_gnu_alternatives_ (Re: [rft] (g)awk substitution) | Date | Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:47:20 -0500 |
| |
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:18 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution > > solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason > > why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but > > I still don't see why you think it's "better" than the three byte fix. > > Ehhh. "I'm not guilty" issue. Well, fine ;)
"guilty"?
You attempted to hijack my simple observation ("awk is the standard name, gawk is not") into an attempt to replace susv3 standard utilities with extra shell script. This is a separate agenda, and I have _no_ idea why you think I'm obligated to pursue it for you.
The motivation for my patch is taht circa 2.6.12 I didn't need gawk on my system to build; the need for it cropped up fairly recently. This is A) an artificial requirement, B) a regression, C) trivial to fix.
I could also teach busybox awk to be called as "gawk", but awk is the standard name and gawk is not, and gawk can already be called as awk. The _clean_ thing to do is send a patch to get Linux to use the standard name, which I did. This is the minimally intrusive change, and since gawk's install creates an awk symlink it shouldn't affect any existing systems.
That's what I did. I am simply not interested in your attempts to do something else, in hopes of fixing a problem I haven't seen and which I'm not convinced actually exists.
> If your current system is IA-32, or you have access to one, would you > like to test scripts/makelst for me, as i'm seeing `bc' there. But my > system have not one, i would like to replace it with shell or awk or > whatever. TIA.
According to Posix and SUSv3, a development environment can be expected to have bc: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/bc.html
Would you like to try the one in busybox?
The minimal development environment I can build a working system in is 7 packages: linux, gcc, binutils, make, busybox, uClibc, bash. This is not theoretical: I have actually done this, and I was building systems under this as far back as 2003. (I became busybox maintainer after spending 2 years upgrading busybox to make this _work_. I started by rewriting sed. I didn't _know_ sed at the time, but binutils ./configure used some rather advanced sed scripts to build, so I fixed it. It works now.)
I'm using this to get a minimal native environment on non-x86 target platforms, to minimize the amount of cross compiling I have to do when bootstrapping a new platform. (I submitted an OLS tutorial proposal on this, although I dunno if they're interested.)
Rob -- "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |