[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:24:55 -0700 |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Might be tricky to portably transform that NUL byte into something we
>> can embed in a command-line-specified search string. Is there even a
>> notation for that? I don't think so.
>>
>> But NUL problems aside, this also should work, requiring alternation
>> in the regexp derived from input with two or more lines, but then
>> we'll have to escape embedded '|' bytes, too:
>
>
> How about the attached patch instead? It uses a bigger hammer, which should
> address both issues.
Very nice. Thank you very much.
You are welcome to push that with changes like the following:
- retain the 2-empty-line section separator in NEWS (there's a
syntax-check hook to test for that in other packages, but not yet here
in gzip)
- adjust the test to cover the case of more than one line in -f's input:
k.patch
Description: Text Data
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Fulvio Scapin, 2016/03/08
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Jim Meyering, 2016/03/15
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/16
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2016/03/17
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/17
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Jim Meyering, 2016/03/17
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/18
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions,
Jim Meyering <=
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/18