[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#486425: ITP: bomstrip -- strip Byte-Order Marks from UTF-8 text files

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:28:52PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ma, 2008-06-16 kello 12:14 +0300, Peter Pentchev kirjoitti:
> > Hm.  Okay, so maybe the two command-line utilities and the collection
> > might be separated.  IMHO, the collection *is* still useful on its own :)
> > If others share this opinion, I may either create two separate packages,
> > or just remove the command-line utilities and file a wishlist bug
> > against coreutils or textutils or something like that.  How does that
> > strike you?  What do others think?
> I wish to ask this question: is packaging this collection directly
> useful to Debian users? How? If the task is to remove BOMs from files,
> then surely that should be served by a one-line sed or perl script (plus
> manual page, copyright license file, etc, so a total cost of about 200
> KiB).
> I'm not saying that the collection should not be packaged, I'm just
> finding it hard to imagine it being useful as a Debian package.

Yes, I agree with your reasoning.  Okay then, so the new plan is
to package the bomstrip and bomstrip-files utilities and the manual
page, and leave developers who are interested in the various
implementations to take a look at the source package.

As to the packaging, though, I wonder.  The sed and awk implementations
of bomstrip have problems with files that do not end in a newline.
Thus, I would prefer to package either the Perl or the C implementation.
The C implementation is a bit larger (ELF and stuff), but the Perl
implementation has a run-time dependency on, well, Perl :)
My personal preference would be towards the C version to avoid
the unnecessary dependency, but if people feel that 5 KB is too big
for such a utility, I'll package up the Perl version instead :)

In another message, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> Would the collection really be useful in /binary/ form, however? If
> the goal is to show how easy it is to write, installing a bunch of
> functionally identical
> /usr/bin/bomstrip.{c,ada,cplusplus,haskell,ocaml} binaries won't
> demonstrate much :)

Errr, that would have been true if the package only distributed
the compiled versions; however, the whole point of my original ITP
was to install all the implementations into /usr/share/bomstrip/source/
and only one executable as /usr/bin/bomstrip :) (and a helper tool as
/usr/bin/bomstrip-files, and manpages for both)

But, yep, as I wrote above, the plan now is to only package the tools
and the manpages.

Thanks to everyone for the comments!


Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net    roam@cnsys.bg    roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
This would easier understand fewer had omitted.

Attachment: pgpyJsF9nj28j.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: