On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:59:14AM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:23:45 +0000 > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote: > > > I've seen a lot of cases over the years of packages depending on gawk > > that do not need it. If you only need a standard nawk (new awk), you > > do not need to depend on gawk. mawk is smaller and faster and > > sufficient for almost all needs, and the existence of some awk on the > > system is guaranteed by base-files. > > Well, as far as I know, mawk has some sort of terrible UTF-8 support, so > it's a no way for many applications. Could you please explain? And if you haven't filed a bug report, could you please do so? Searching Google, the only UTF-8-related bugs I found are bugs mandated by POSIX (and one that updating mawk to 1.3.4 would fix). Also, my original post was inspired by the fact that most packages depending on gawk invoke "awk" as their binary. In that case, the dependency is wrong and unnecessary. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature