Re: busybox sed not POSIX-conforming? (was: groff 1.25.0.rc2 on Alpine Linux)

Hi,

To whom the problem belongs, those have to solve it.

Best regards,
--
Roberto A. Foglietta
+49.176.274.75.661
+39.349.33.30.697


On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 at 04:30, G. Branden Robinson via busybox
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [looping in busybox mailing list; Bruno found a sed portability problem]
>
> Background:
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68601
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> At 2026-08-06T18:07:55+0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > The reason is that the 'sed' program on this platform (from BusyBox)
> > > ignores '-e' options when a '-f' option is present, regardless
> > > whether the '-e' options come before or after the '-f' option.
> >
> > Addendum: This is not the case in general, but is the case with this
> > particular '-f' script and these particular '-e' options.
>
> I didn't experiment to determine the issue, but the following change in
> wording from POSIX Issue 4 to Issue 8 might account for the discrepancy.
>
> Issue 4:
>
> −f script_file          Add the editing commands in the file script_file
>                         to the end of the script.
>
> Issue 8:
>
> −f script_file          Add the editing commands in the file script_file
>                         to the end of the script of editing commands.
>
> I wonder what alternative script the Busybox developers have in mind.
>
> Regards,
> Branden