Re: Bug#126434: ITP: super-sed -- An enhanced version of sed
>>>>> "Henrique" == Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
>> What you want is dpkg-divert. But I vote against diverting /usr/bin/sed.
> I have to agree with Adam, diverting sed might be dangerous.
> HOWEVER, nothing forbids you to package it simply as ssed for now, then
> run very comprehensive regression tests to make sure it has no incompatibi-
> lities with GNU sed. Maybe, symlink sed to ssed in your system to help with
> this testing.
Super sed comes with a fairly comprehensive test suite which passes without
problems. However, I still agree that it is too early to divert sed now.
> If ssed is indeed faster, better, and backwards-compatible, as well as
> maintained upstream, we might want to use it as our sed for woody+1
> (provided you email enough evidence that it would be a good idea, and the
> sed maintainer agrees with the exchange).
Another advantage is that this version of sed is internationalized. However,
I agree that this is definitely a woody+1 issue.
Ganesan
Reply to: