[Nut-upsdev] [Nut-upsuser] NUT v2.8.4 coming up

[Jim Klimov]

A solution similar to neighboring code posted as part of
https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/3042 - thanks again for raising
this point.

@Greg: can you please check that branch with pkgsrc et al?

Jim


On Sat, Aug 2, 2025, 21:15 Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Greg,
>
>   Regarding `\s` - good catch, as I read your post, I was sure it is used
> all over the place... but in fact only in perl code (also Java/groovy in CI
> libs), so not quite a GNU-only extension. Native Sun and BSD sed's were
> okay with that too. Most shell code went with "[ ${TABCHAR}]" where
> TABCHAR="`printf '\t'`" because indeed many sed's or especially grep's
> treat direct `\t` as escaped character "t". Missed doing that here. Once!
> And you got me on that! :D
>
>   Truth be told, one script does mention `[[:blank:]]`.
>
>   Regarding commentary on docs, fair enough about the configure.ac
> script, but does at least `docs/configure.txt` explain it satisfactorily?
>
> Jim
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2025, 18:43 Greg Troxel via Nut-upsuser <
> nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Klimov via Nut-upsdev <nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net> writes:
>>
>> > FWIW, I did merge the previously queued "small PRs",
>>
>> Great, thanks.
>>
>> > now probably gotta
>> > figure out what Greg found with pkgsrc's `sed` (or await his PR with a
>> fix
>> > that would work everywhere - can't reproduce the problem so far), and
>> > planned changes will be done.
>>
>> This is not about pkgsrc's sed; it's about the sed that is part of the
>> NetBSD base system, which is believed to conform to POSIX.  (When
>> building under pkgsrc, the base sed is used even if gsed is installed,
>> as part of repeatable build hygiene.)
>>
>> I am 99% sure that the problem is this, from doc/Makefile.am, building
>> ChangeLog.adoc from ChangeLog:
>>
>>   -e 's,^\(\s\s*\)\([0-9]\),\1{empty}\2,g'
>>
>> resulting in
>>
>>   "s,^\(\s\s*\)\([0-9]\),\ ..."
>>
>>
>> I think the problem is that  \s is a GNU beyond-POSIX extension and the
>> standards-compliant way to write this is
>>
>>   -e 's,^\([:blank:][:blank:]*\)\([0-9]\),\1{empty}2\,g' \
>>
>> instead.
>>
>>
>> (In general, I find the sed magic surrounding docs builds too hard to
>> understand, even for someone who has used sed, probably starting with
>> Seventh Edition.)
>>
>> > On one hand, a build is expected to deliver man pages. Historically
>> *roff
>> > files were directly edited and served by projects; nowadays it is
>> asciidoc
>> > or similar, rendered into man pages as one of many output formats.  Dist
>> > tarballs include those page files so they can be installed even where
>> > asciidoc renderer is not available. So some options manage this part.
>>
>> ok, but which options actually do what precisely?  Does --without-doc
>> say "don't build them" or "don't install them"?  What happens if you
>> give --without-doc, and you don't, or do, have them built?  One could
>> make an argument that "don't build them, and install what should have
>> been built into distfile, erroring out if not there" is mild/acceptable,
>> resulting in a correct package.  And that "don't build and don't
>> install" is, while useful to some, an instruction that results in a
>> defective install.
>>
>> This is not understandable from reading configure.ac.
>>
>> > Another issue is the codes assigned to man page sections in different
>> OSes
>> > - this was previously bolted to what is seen in Linux and FreeBSD; now
>> can
>> > be amended for package builds (especially on other platforms), to avoid
>> > clumsy distro-specific patch files or scripts in their recipes.
>>
>> sure, good to have --do-foo to accomodate.  So far that's not my issue!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nut-upsuser mailing list
>> Nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net
>> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20250803/cddac69a/attachment.htm>