Re: sed on binary files

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Jim Meyering on 10/2/2008 10:16 AM:
>> Actually, I'm a bit lazy - I guess I'm okay with false positives on
>> Solaris when using deficient sed, so long as we can also run on Solaris
>> with GNU sed.  So I'm installing this patch, which lets the user select
>> the right sed, as well as passing both files through sed (a no-op for GNU
>> sed, but strips NUL bytes equally for Solaris sed).  (At any rate, it was
>> easier to code than searching for a tr that handles NUL).
>>
>> Should I also modify configure.ac to call AC_PROG_SED, and feed that as
>> the default for $SED in the check script?  (The master branch is currently
>> the only branch that uses $SED, thanks to libtool.)
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> You could also just skip the affected tests when configure
> fails to find an appropriate sed command.
> 
> In general, I prefer to skip tests than to get false positives,
> since that decreases the likelihood of problem reports ;-)

For the branches, I'm just committing my previously proposed patch which
normalizes both the user output and expected output, and on Solaris, means
the test can no longer compare behavior on NUL unless you set
SED=path/to/gnu/sed.  Here's what I'm committing on the master branch,
which actually skips the test if $SED (defaulting to the one learned from
configure.ac) can't handle NUL.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjvVNsACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBQ7wCcDbKFS1gT7N4AuywUkpIiMdyh
F0YAoK56NDDMHJlcVqj3nntkr13OpMI9
=TLpf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----