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

[Thomas Wolff <towo@towo.net>]

Am 13.11.2022 um 23:13 schrieb Brian Inglis:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:09:19 +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>> Am 04.11.2022 um 20:27 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>>> On Nov  4 13:07, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 19:31:27 +0100, 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.
>>>> The issue does not appear to be about POSIX compliance, but that 
>>>> [ef]grep
>>>> were dropped from POSIX before 2008 and declared obsolescent, so the
>>>> maintainers appear to be looking to drop those commands/scripts.
>>> This is a usability issue.  If upstream thinks they have to do such a
>>> potentially destructive and backward-incompatible change for no other
>>> reason than "is not in POSIX", they can do so, but there's no good
>>> reason the distros who *care* for usability have to do this either.
>>>
>>>> You could perhaps reach out to Eric Blake or Jim Meyering who are 
>>>> in the GNU
>>>> grep contributor lists for rationale.
>>>>
>>>> While Debian and OpenSuSE have reverted that change, Fedora has not 
>>>> in main
>>>> or rawhide.
>>> Right, Debian and OpenSuSE revert the change and the BSDs will not 
>>> break
>>> e/fgrep either, obviously.  I doubt Ubuntu will do that. Fedora often
>>> values progress, for a given value of "progress", higher than 
>>> usability.
>>> They will probably see lots of Bugzillas and user requests in other
>>> forums due to this change and then ignore them.  But that doesn't mean
>>> we have to do it.
>>>
>>> Again: Egrep and fgrep are used in lots of scripts around the world.  A
>>> change like this will have a massive impact for years to come.
>>>
>>> So, again, in the name of usability, let's follow Debian and OpenSuSE
>>> here, not Fedora, please.
>
>> @Brian, as a grep package maintainer, can you *please* make a trivial 
>> patch to remove the grep crap as Corinna suggested and upload an 
>> updated package *today*, as Jon Turney threatens to freeze the x86 
>> repository tomorrow?
>
> Successfully deployed from Scallywag and announced.
>
Great! Thank you very much.