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

[Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>]

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.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis			Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte			Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter	not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer	but when there is no more to cut
			-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry