requesting ed

[hiro]

as we ship with sed and even vi, why don't we have the standard text editor in base?
I use ed for editing files in place instead of streaming with hacky workarounds like

Code: [Select]

sed 's/a/b/' file > tempfile; mv tempfile file

[bmarkus]

Please do not break Core's core philosophy requesting addition ad-hoc applications to base.

You are welcome to submit ed.tcz if you are missing it.

[hiro]

I'm not breaking anything, just trying to retrace and reevaluate the thoughts that led to the current choice of base applications.

I'm quite happy with having busybox as an alternative to these bloated GNU core utilities, but that also means there's no way I'll be using coreutils for anything.

[bmarkus]

You are welcome to submit ed.tcz built from BusyBox.

[hiro]

Honestly i haven't considered compiling statically just one program out of busybox like that. In my mind I only saw the huge busybox binary and didn't see a good way of making this a slick additional package.

[tinypoodle]

Why not dynamically linking additional busybox applets, when busybox in base is already dynamically linked?

[gerald_clark]

sed -i 's/a/b/' file

[hiro]

Why not dynamically linking additional busybox applets, when busybox in base is already dynamically linked?

I thought static would be simple and failsafe, so I didn't think further, wasn't even aware busybox in tc is dynamically linked.

[hiro]

sed -i 's/a/b/' file

heh, I didn't even know our busybox version supports -i.
I have some other scripts lying around that use ed because sed -i doesn't exist on some systems without GNU software.
I'm considering changing my usage of ed to sed -i, but not sure yet, will have to check some of those other systems first.