Re: [PATCH 03/16] more tr portability test script fixes

[Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano, Wed, Mar 19, 2008 22:40:57 +0100:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:02PM +0100, Alex Riesen wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff King, Wed, Mar 12, 2008 22:31:06 +0100:
> >> > -    tr '\000' '\012' <"$1" | sed -e "$sanitize_diff_raw_z" >.tmp-1
> >> > -    tr '\000' '\012' <"$2" | sed -e "$sanitize_diff_raw_z" >.tmp-2
> >> > +    perl -pe 'y/\000/\012/' <"$1" | sed -e "$sanitize_diff_raw_z" >.tmp-1
> >> > +    perl -pe 'y/\000/\012/' <"$2" | sed -e "$sanitize_diff_raw_z" >.tmp-2
> >> 
> >> These break in presence of ActiveState Perl on Windows.
> >> 
> >> I suggest replacing such simple construction with a simplified,
> >> in-tree, version of tr.
> >
> > <sigh> It's sad that it must come to that, but your test-tr patches seem
> > like the only sane choice. They seem to work fine on my Solaris box.
> 
> I am very tempted to say that it might make more sense to declare
> ActiveState unsupported.

I am not asking to really support it, it is too offending a thought.
I am just asking to consider the patch, which removes another
dependency on local system. Wasn't there issues with tr already?

> How many times have we suffered from it, and notice it was only from
> Alex every time, nobody else?

Well, I say that every time. I think by know everyone, who seen a
patch from me, noticed how very specially stupid my kind of setup is.

BTW, who suffered from what?

> Are there silent majorities involved here?

Yeah, the windows-people. They are used to silently workaround their
system.