Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Test: grep 3.8 - promotion to current stable

["Richard H. Gumpertz" <Rick@Gumpertz.com>]

I don't care how you do it, but utilities that have been around since 
the beginning of time should NEVER go away!  Nor should changes to them 
they break existing, working, scripts.  Deprecate them in man pages if 
you want, but don't ever break things that work unless so doing has a 
GIANT payback by allowing something else to get better.

                 Rick Gumpertz

On 11/3/2022 11:31, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Brian Inglis writes:
>> Suggest that I could come up with a package grep-nowarn which can only
>> suppress the [ef]grep warnings, where the package would install
>> [ef]grep-nowarn, and the postinstall script could rename the
>> distributed shell scripts to [ef]grep-warn, and install alternatives
>> with -warn priority 10, -nowarn priority 20; preremove would reverse
>> the process.
>>
>> Suggestions to accommodate -nowarn from grep package postinstall?
>> I could supply the same postinstall and preremove as -nowarn to check
>> for -nowarn and install or uninstall the alternative.
>>
>> Sequence or timing issues to watch out for during postinstall/preremove?
> As Corinna already said, why GNU suddenly cares so much about strict
> POSIX conformance in this case is puzzling.  If anything they should
> have left the decision to packagers and IMNHO the warning should only be
> presented when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set in the environment, if at all.
> The patch to the wrapper script(s) in question is trivial and several
> Linux distributions have removed the warning already (if you do this,
> also change the interpreter from bash to dash).  Just skip any
> extra packages and do the same.
>
>
> Regards,
> Achim.